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 The existing RMPs were establishing during the 1980s and, since then, the RMPs have been rendered out-of-date due to changed circumstances and new information on socioeconomic and biologic conditions within the planning area; new laws, regulations, and policies that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
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
VL  - 4
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/36402186?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 1 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  - 36402064; 13487-080249_0001
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
VL  - 1
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/36402064?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 3 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  - 36392777; 13487-080249_0003
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
VL  - 3
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/36392777?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 6 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  - 36391829; 13487-080249_0006
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
VL  - 6
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/36391829?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 5 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  - 36387402; 13487-080249_0005
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
VL  - 5
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/36387402?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 2 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  - 36384568; 13487-080249_0002
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
VL  - 2
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/36384568?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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  - EAST LYNN LAKE COAL LEASE, WAYNE COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.
AN  - 36404449; 13480
AB  - PURPOSE: The assessment of two leases-by-application (LBAs) received by the Bureau of Land Management requesting access to federal coal estate underlying nine tracts within the East Lynn Lake Project in southeastern Wayne County, West Virginia is presented. The LBA applicants are Argus Energy WV, LLC and Rockspring Development, Inc. The lake project is operated under the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the purposes of flood control, water quality, fish population and habitat management, and recreation. If the leases were approved, the coal would be mined from the Coalburg/Winifrede seam adjacent to the East Lynn Lake reservoir, which lies within the Twelvepole Creek watershed. The seam is part of the Williams Coal Field on the Appalachian Plateau. Rockspring's Camp Creek coal mining complex and Argus' Mine No. 8 and Mine o. 3 lie adjacent to the nine proposed lease tracts and, as existing permitted facilities, will continue to function regardless of the outcome of the LBAs. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to protection of environmental resources such as geologic, water-related, soil, vegetation, cultural, and socioeconomic resources; protection of existing designated uses related to the lake project; and economically viable mining methods. Under the reasonably foreseeable development scenario, granting of the LBAs would result in the removal, by room-and-pillar mining methods, of approximately 76 million in-place tons of coal, providing 26.3 million clean recoverable tons of coal. Under the applicants' proposals, mining would proceed over 10 to 15 years. All disturbed land would be reclaimed following closure of the mines. In addition to granting of the LBAs, the proposed action and preferred alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Granting the leases would extend the mine life of the applicants' existing, adjoining operations, sustain viable rural economics in the vicinity of the lease tracts, and generate coal from federal estate, a traditional source of coal in the United States, to help satisfy the nation's energy needs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Aboveground facilities, including the waste rock and overburden pile, access roads, and other mining and transportation infrastructure would displace soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Surface disturbances would exacerbate erosion and sedimentation within the watershed. Potentially significant levels of acids could leach from the mine and waste rock storage facility, resulting in degradation of downstream water quality and of the associated fish habitat and potential degradation of the groundwater aquifer. Geologic structures would be destroyed, and paleontological resources would be lost. The use of room-and-pillar mining would engender the likelihood of subsidence. Noise, aboveground mining infrastructure, and equipment operating during mining would degrade the recreational experience of visitors to East Lynn Lake. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080242, 598 pages and maps, June 18, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-21
KW  - Acids
KW  - Coal
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Hazard Surveys
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Noise
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - East Lynn Lake
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36404449?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LYNN+LAKE+COAL+LEASE%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=EAST+LYNN+LAKE+COAL+LEASE%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREETS AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE AND MADISON DRIVE IN NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 5 of 5]
T2  - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREETS AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE AND MADISON DRIVE IN NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
AN  - 36399312; 13485-080247_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the National Museum of African-American History and Culture between 14th and 15th streets and Constitution Avenue and Madison Drive in Northwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed by the Smithsonian Institution. The project would provide and operate a permanent facility on the Washington Monument Grounds within the Smithsonian Institution on a five-acre parcel. Issues addressed in selecting the site and the building design include those related to massing (the form of a building conveying proportion and size), building height, setback and alignment, outdoor program space, and the viewshed. In addition the Smithsonian Institution developed eight overarching principles that provided a foundation for the development of alternatives, guided their refinement, and served as criteria for success; these principles are related to physical character, mission and program appropriateness, monumental context, urban design principles associated with physical context, historic and cultural resource protection, visitor use and access, visitor experience, and operational functionality. This final EIS considers seven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative. Depending on the action alternative considered, the building would rise 60 to 105 feet above street level, providing for five to eight floors above grade and two to three floors below grade. The facility would contain 350,000 to 430,000 square feet. The north-south building orientation would align with the National Museum of American History's (NMAH) main building mass under three alternatives, the NMAH's north facade building mass under one alternative; and with no surrounding building under two alternatives. The east-west building orientation would align with the protecting portico of the Department of Commerce, the southwest facade of the Washington Monument, or 14th Street, or would be unaligned with respect to east-west orientation. Aesthetically, Alternative 1 would result in contextual massing the explicitly related to the pattern of buildings fronting the National Mall. Alternative 2 would be less convention in form and bridge the axis of the Mall with the north-south axis of open spaces leading to the White House. Alternative 3 would provide a more complex design, with the potential for buildings that look very different from a variety of locations. Alternative 4 would provide two distinct aesthetic experiences, blending into the landscape towards the Monument, while exhibiting more traditional building facades at the intersection of Constitution Avenue and 14th Street. Alternative 5 would provide for a bifurcated structure with varying heights, relating to context through building and spatial orientation rather than building or height alignment. Alternative 6 would offer a minimized visible mass and a soft edge along the southwest facade that would be aligned with 15th Street and Madison Drive, deferring to the presence of the Washington Monument. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The museum would be dedicated to the collection, preservation, research, and exhibition of American historical and cultural materials, reflecting the breadth and depth of the experience of individuals of African descent living in the United States. It would constitute the only institution providing a national meeting place for Americans to learn about the history and culture of African-Americans and their contributions to and relationship with every aspect of our national life. Increased visitation to the District of Columbia due to the attraction of the museum would boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The museum would displace an open space on the Washington Monument grounds of the National Mall, altering the historic boundaries of the grounds and altering the spatial organization of the grounds by diminishing the prominence of the Washington Monument as a central organizing feature. Significant impacts would also occur for buildings and structures located within the Monument grounds as well as the Federal Triangle along Constitution Avenue. Vegetation and alternative land uses would be removed. The viewshed and specific vistas would be altered. The museum would be situated in an area in violation of federal standards regarding ozone and particulate matter. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-184). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0090D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080247, Final EIS--401 pages (oversized), Appendices--324 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: SI 0495801A
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Museums
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2003, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36399312?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMITHSONIAN+INSTITUTION+NATIONAL+MUSEUM+OF+AFRICAN-AMERICAN+HISTORY+AND+CULTURE%2C+BETWEEN+14TH+AND+15TH+STREETS+AND+CONSTITUTION+AVENUE+AND+MADISON+DRIVE+IN+NORTHWEST+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SMITHSONIAN+INSTITUTION+NATIONAL+MUSEUM+OF+AFRICAN-AMERICAN+HISTORY+AND+CULTURE%2C+BETWEEN+14TH+AND+15TH+STREETS+AND+CONSTITUTION+AVENUE+AND+MADISON+DRIVE+IN+NORTHWEST+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EAST LYNN LAKE COAL LEASE, WAYNE COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - EAST LYNN LAKE COAL LEASE, WAYNE COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.
AN  - 36390808; 13480-080242_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The assessment of two leases-by-application (LBAs) received by the Bureau of Land Management requesting access to federal coal estate underlying nine tracts within the East Lynn Lake Project in southeastern Wayne County, West Virginia is presented. The LBA applicants are Argus Energy WV, LLC and Rockspring Development, Inc. The lake project is operated under the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the purposes of flood control, water quality, fish population and habitat management, and recreation. If the leases were approved, the coal would be mined from the Coalburg/Winifrede seam adjacent to the East Lynn Lake reservoir, which lies within the Twelvepole Creek watershed. The seam is part of the Williams Coal Field on the Appalachian Plateau. Rockspring's Camp Creek coal mining complex and Argus' Mine No. 8 and Mine o. 3 lie adjacent to the nine proposed lease tracts and, as existing permitted facilities, will continue to function regardless of the outcome of the LBAs. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to protection of environmental resources such as geologic, water-related, soil, vegetation, cultural, and socioeconomic resources; protection of existing designated uses related to the lake project; and economically viable mining methods. Under the reasonably foreseeable development scenario, granting of the LBAs would result in the removal, by room-and-pillar mining methods, of approximately 76 million in-place tons of coal, providing 26.3 million clean recoverable tons of coal. Under the applicants' proposals, mining would proceed over 10 to 15 years. All disturbed land would be reclaimed following closure of the mines. In addition to granting of the LBAs, the proposed action and preferred alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Granting the leases would extend the mine life of the applicants' existing, adjoining operations, sustain viable rural economics in the vicinity of the lease tracts, and generate coal from federal estate, a traditional source of coal in the United States, to help satisfy the nation's energy needs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Aboveground facilities, including the waste rock and overburden pile, access roads, and other mining and transportation infrastructure would displace soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Surface disturbances would exacerbate erosion and sedimentation within the watershed. Potentially significant levels of acids could leach from the mine and waste rock storage facility, resulting in degradation of downstream water quality and of the associated fish habitat and potential degradation of the groundwater aquifer. Geologic structures would be destroyed, and paleontological resources would be lost. The use of room-and-pillar mining would engender the likelihood of subsidence. Noise, aboveground mining infrastructure, and equipment operating during mining would degrade the recreational experience of visitors to East Lynn Lake. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080242, 598 pages and maps, June 18, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-21
KW  - Acids
KW  - Coal
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Hazard Surveys
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Noise
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - East Lynn Lake
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390808?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LYNN+LAKE+COAL+LEASE%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=EAST+LYNN+LAKE+COAL+LEASE%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREETS AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE AND MADISON DRIVE IN NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 2 of 5]
T2  - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREETS AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE AND MADISON DRIVE IN NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
AN  - 36390278; 13485-080247_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the National Museum of African-American History and Culture between 14th and 15th streets and Constitution Avenue and Madison Drive in Northwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed by the Smithsonian Institution. The project would provide and operate a permanent facility on the Washington Monument Grounds within the Smithsonian Institution on a five-acre parcel. Issues addressed in selecting the site and the building design include those related to massing (the form of a building conveying proportion and size), building height, setback and alignment, outdoor program space, and the viewshed. In addition the Smithsonian Institution developed eight overarching principles that provided a foundation for the development of alternatives, guided their refinement, and served as criteria for success; these principles are related to physical character, mission and program appropriateness, monumental context, urban design principles associated with physical context, historic and cultural resource protection, visitor use and access, visitor experience, and operational functionality. This final EIS considers seven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative. Depending on the action alternative considered, the building would rise 60 to 105 feet above street level, providing for five to eight floors above grade and two to three floors below grade. The facility would contain 350,000 to 430,000 square feet. The north-south building orientation would align with the National Museum of American History's (NMAH) main building mass under three alternatives, the NMAH's north facade building mass under one alternative; and with no surrounding building under two alternatives. The east-west building orientation would align with the protecting portico of the Department of Commerce, the southwest facade of the Washington Monument, or 14th Street, or would be unaligned with respect to east-west orientation. Aesthetically, Alternative 1 would result in contextual massing the explicitly related to the pattern of buildings fronting the National Mall. Alternative 2 would be less convention in form and bridge the axis of the Mall with the north-south axis of open spaces leading to the White House. Alternative 3 would provide a more complex design, with the potential for buildings that look very different from a variety of locations. Alternative 4 would provide two distinct aesthetic experiences, blending into the landscape towards the Monument, while exhibiting more traditional building facades at the intersection of Constitution Avenue and 14th Street. Alternative 5 would provide for a bifurcated structure with varying heights, relating to context through building and spatial orientation rather than building or height alignment. Alternative 6 would offer a minimized visible mass and a soft edge along the southwest facade that would be aligned with 15th Street and Madison Drive, deferring to the presence of the Washington Monument. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The museum would be dedicated to the collection, preservation, research, and exhibition of American historical and cultural materials, reflecting the breadth and depth of the experience of individuals of African descent living in the United States. It would constitute the only institution providing a national meeting place for Americans to learn about the history and culture of African-Americans and their contributions to and relationship with every aspect of our national life. Increased visitation to the District of Columbia due to the attraction of the museum would boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The museum would displace an open space on the Washington Monument grounds of the National Mall, altering the historic boundaries of the grounds and altering the spatial organization of the grounds by diminishing the prominence of the Washington Monument as a central organizing feature. Significant impacts would also occur for buildings and structures located within the Monument grounds as well as the Federal Triangle along Constitution Avenue. Vegetation and alternative land uses would be removed. The viewshed and specific vistas would be altered. The museum would be situated in an area in violation of federal standards regarding ozone and particulate matter. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-184). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0090D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080247, Final EIS--401 pages (oversized), Appendices--324 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: SI 0495801A
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Museums
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2003, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390278?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMITHSONIAN+INSTITUTION+NATIONAL+MUSEUM+OF+AFRICAN-AMERICAN+HISTORY+AND+CULTURE%2C+BETWEEN+14TH+AND+15TH+STREETS+AND+CONSTITUTION+AVENUE+AND+MADISON+DRIVE+IN+NORTHWEST+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SMITHSONIAN+INSTITUTION+NATIONAL+MUSEUM+OF+AFRICAN-AMERICAN+HISTORY+AND+CULTURE%2C+BETWEEN+14TH+AND+15TH+STREETS+AND+CONSTITUTION+AVENUE+AND+MADISON+DRIVE+IN+NORTHWEST+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREETS AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE AND MADISON DRIVE IN NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 4 of 5]
T2  - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREETS AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE AND MADISON DRIVE IN NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
AN  - 36386119; 13485-080247_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the National Museum of African-American History and Culture between 14th and 15th streets and Constitution Avenue and Madison Drive in Northwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed by the Smithsonian Institution. The project would provide and operate a permanent facility on the Washington Monument Grounds within the Smithsonian Institution on a five-acre parcel. Issues addressed in selecting the site and the building design include those related to massing (the form of a building conveying proportion and size), building height, setback and alignment, outdoor program space, and the viewshed. In addition the Smithsonian Institution developed eight overarching principles that provided a foundation for the development of alternatives, guided their refinement, and served as criteria for success; these principles are related to physical character, mission and program appropriateness, monumental context, urban design principles associated with physical context, historic and cultural resource protection, visitor use and access, visitor experience, and operational functionality. This final EIS considers seven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative. Depending on the action alternative considered, the building would rise 60 to 105 feet above street level, providing for five to eight floors above grade and two to three floors below grade. The facility would contain 350,000 to 430,000 square feet. The north-south building orientation would align with the National Museum of American History's (NMAH) main building mass under three alternatives, the NMAH's north facade building mass under one alternative; and with no surrounding building under two alternatives. The east-west building orientation would align with the protecting portico of the Department of Commerce, the southwest facade of the Washington Monument, or 14th Street, or would be unaligned with respect to east-west orientation. Aesthetically, Alternative 1 would result in contextual massing the explicitly related to the pattern of buildings fronting the National Mall. Alternative 2 would be less convention in form and bridge the axis of the Mall with the north-south axis of open spaces leading to the White House. Alternative 3 would provide a more complex design, with the potential for buildings that look very different from a variety of locations. Alternative 4 would provide two distinct aesthetic experiences, blending into the landscape towards the Monument, while exhibiting more traditional building facades at the intersection of Constitution Avenue and 14th Street. Alternative 5 would provide for a bifurcated structure with varying heights, relating to context through building and spatial orientation rather than building or height alignment. Alternative 6 would offer a minimized visible mass and a soft edge along the southwest facade that would be aligned with 15th Street and Madison Drive, deferring to the presence of the Washington Monument. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The museum would be dedicated to the collection, preservation, research, and exhibition of American historical and cultural materials, reflecting the breadth and depth of the experience of individuals of African descent living in the United States. It would constitute the only institution providing a national meeting place for Americans to learn about the history and culture of African-Americans and their contributions to and relationship with every aspect of our national life. Increased visitation to the District of Columbia due to the attraction of the museum would boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The museum would displace an open space on the Washington Monument grounds of the National Mall, altering the historic boundaries of the grounds and altering the spatial organization of the grounds by diminishing the prominence of the Washington Monument as a central organizing feature. Significant impacts would also occur for buildings and structures located within the Monument grounds as well as the Federal Triangle along Constitution Avenue. Vegetation and alternative land uses would be removed. The viewshed and specific vistas would be altered. The museum would be situated in an area in violation of federal standards regarding ozone and particulate matter. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-184). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0090D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080247, Final EIS--401 pages (oversized), Appendices--324 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: SI 0495801A
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Museums
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2003, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36386119?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMITHSONIAN+INSTITUTION+NATIONAL+MUSEUM+OF+AFRICAN-AMERICAN+HISTORY+AND+CULTURE%2C+BETWEEN+14TH+AND+15TH+STREETS+AND+CONSTITUTION+AVENUE+AND+MADISON+DRIVE+IN+NORTHWEST+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SMITHSONIAN+INSTITUTION+NATIONAL+MUSEUM+OF+AFRICAN-AMERICAN+HISTORY+AND+CULTURE%2C+BETWEEN+14TH+AND+15TH+STREETS+AND+CONSTITUTION+AVENUE+AND+MADISON+DRIVE+IN+NORTHWEST+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EAST LYNN LAKE COAL LEASE, WAYNE COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - EAST LYNN LAKE COAL LEASE, WAYNE COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.
AN  - 36383551; 13480-080242_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The assessment of two leases-by-application (LBAs) received by the Bureau of Land Management requesting access to federal coal estate underlying nine tracts within the East Lynn Lake Project in southeastern Wayne County, West Virginia is presented. The LBA applicants are Argus Energy WV, LLC and Rockspring Development, Inc. The lake project is operated under the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the purposes of flood control, water quality, fish population and habitat management, and recreation. If the leases were approved, the coal would be mined from the Coalburg/Winifrede seam adjacent to the East Lynn Lake reservoir, which lies within the Twelvepole Creek watershed. The seam is part of the Williams Coal Field on the Appalachian Plateau. Rockspring's Camp Creek coal mining complex and Argus' Mine No. 8 and Mine o. 3 lie adjacent to the nine proposed lease tracts and, as existing permitted facilities, will continue to function regardless of the outcome of the LBAs. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to protection of environmental resources such as geologic, water-related, soil, vegetation, cultural, and socioeconomic resources; protection of existing designated uses related to the lake project; and economically viable mining methods. Under the reasonably foreseeable development scenario, granting of the LBAs would result in the removal, by room-and-pillar mining methods, of approximately 76 million in-place tons of coal, providing 26.3 million clean recoverable tons of coal. Under the applicants' proposals, mining would proceed over 10 to 15 years. All disturbed land would be reclaimed following closure of the mines. In addition to granting of the LBAs, the proposed action and preferred alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Granting the leases would extend the mine life of the applicants' existing, adjoining operations, sustain viable rural economics in the vicinity of the lease tracts, and generate coal from federal estate, a traditional source of coal in the United States, to help satisfy the nation's energy needs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Aboveground facilities, including the waste rock and overburden pile, access roads, and other mining and transportation infrastructure would displace soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Surface disturbances would exacerbate erosion and sedimentation within the watershed. Potentially significant levels of acids could leach from the mine and waste rock storage facility, resulting in degradation of downstream water quality and of the associated fish habitat and potential degradation of the groundwater aquifer. Geologic structures would be destroyed, and paleontological resources would be lost. The use of room-and-pillar mining would engender the likelihood of subsidence. Noise, aboveground mining infrastructure, and equipment operating during mining would degrade the recreational experience of visitors to East Lynn Lake. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080242, 598 pages and maps, June 18, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-21
KW  - Acids
KW  - Coal
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Hazard Surveys
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Noise
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - East Lynn Lake
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383551?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LYNN+LAKE+COAL+LEASE%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=EAST+LYNN+LAKE+COAL+LEASE%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREETS AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE AND MADISON DRIVE IN NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 3 of 5]
T2  - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREETS AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE AND MADISON DRIVE IN NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
AN  - 36383062; 13485-080247_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the National Museum of African-American History and Culture between 14th and 15th streets and Constitution Avenue and Madison Drive in Northwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed by the Smithsonian Institution. The project would provide and operate a permanent facility on the Washington Monument Grounds within the Smithsonian Institution on a five-acre parcel. Issues addressed in selecting the site and the building design include those related to massing (the form of a building conveying proportion and size), building height, setback and alignment, outdoor program space, and the viewshed. In addition the Smithsonian Institution developed eight overarching principles that provided a foundation for the development of alternatives, guided their refinement, and served as criteria for success; these principles are related to physical character, mission and program appropriateness, monumental context, urban design principles associated with physical context, historic and cultural resource protection, visitor use and access, visitor experience, and operational functionality. This final EIS considers seven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative. Depending on the action alternative considered, the building would rise 60 to 105 feet above street level, providing for five to eight floors above grade and two to three floors below grade. The facility would contain 350,000 to 430,000 square feet. The north-south building orientation would align with the National Museum of American History's (NMAH) main building mass under three alternatives, the NMAH's north facade building mass under one alternative; and with no surrounding building under two alternatives. The east-west building orientation would align with the protecting portico of the Department of Commerce, the southwest facade of the Washington Monument, or 14th Street, or would be unaligned with respect to east-west orientation. Aesthetically, Alternative 1 would result in contextual massing the explicitly related to the pattern of buildings fronting the National Mall. Alternative 2 would be less convention in form and bridge the axis of the Mall with the north-south axis of open spaces leading to the White House. Alternative 3 would provide a more complex design, with the potential for buildings that look very different from a variety of locations. Alternative 4 would provide two distinct aesthetic experiences, blending into the landscape towards the Monument, while exhibiting more traditional building facades at the intersection of Constitution Avenue and 14th Street. Alternative 5 would provide for a bifurcated structure with varying heights, relating to context through building and spatial orientation rather than building or height alignment. Alternative 6 would offer a minimized visible mass and a soft edge along the southwest facade that would be aligned with 15th Street and Madison Drive, deferring to the presence of the Washington Monument. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The museum would be dedicated to the collection, preservation, research, and exhibition of American historical and cultural materials, reflecting the breadth and depth of the experience of individuals of African descent living in the United States. It would constitute the only institution providing a national meeting place for Americans to learn about the history and culture of African-Americans and their contributions to and relationship with every aspect of our national life. Increased visitation to the District of Columbia due to the attraction of the museum would boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The museum would displace an open space on the Washington Monument grounds of the National Mall, altering the historic boundaries of the grounds and altering the spatial organization of the grounds by diminishing the prominence of the Washington Monument as a central organizing feature. Significant impacts would also occur for buildings and structures located within the Monument grounds as well as the Federal Triangle along Constitution Avenue. Vegetation and alternative land uses would be removed. The viewshed and specific vistas would be altered. The museum would be situated in an area in violation of federal standards regarding ozone and particulate matter. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-184). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0090D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080247, Final EIS--401 pages (oversized), Appendices--324 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: SI 0495801A
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Museums
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2003, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383062?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMITHSONIAN+INSTITUTION+NATIONAL+MUSEUM+OF+AFRICAN-AMERICAN+HISTORY+AND+CULTURE%2C+BETWEEN+14TH+AND+15TH+STREETS+AND+CONSTITUTION+AVENUE+AND+MADISON+DRIVE+IN+NORTHWEST+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SMITHSONIAN+INSTITUTION+NATIONAL+MUSEUM+OF+AFRICAN-AMERICAN+HISTORY+AND+CULTURE%2C+BETWEEN+14TH+AND+15TH+STREETS+AND+CONSTITUTION+AVENUE+AND+MADISON+DRIVE+IN+NORTHWEST+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EAST LYNN LAKE COAL LEASE, WAYNE COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - EAST LYNN LAKE COAL LEASE, WAYNE COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.
AN  - 36382680; 13480-080242_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The assessment of two leases-by-application (LBAs) received by the Bureau of Land Management requesting access to federal coal estate underlying nine tracts within the East Lynn Lake Project in southeastern Wayne County, West Virginia is presented. The LBA applicants are Argus Energy WV, LLC and Rockspring Development, Inc. The lake project is operated under the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the purposes of flood control, water quality, fish population and habitat management, and recreation. If the leases were approved, the coal would be mined from the Coalburg/Winifrede seam adjacent to the East Lynn Lake reservoir, which lies within the Twelvepole Creek watershed. The seam is part of the Williams Coal Field on the Appalachian Plateau. Rockspring's Camp Creek coal mining complex and Argus' Mine No. 8 and Mine o. 3 lie adjacent to the nine proposed lease tracts and, as existing permitted facilities, will continue to function regardless of the outcome of the LBAs. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to protection of environmental resources such as geologic, water-related, soil, vegetation, cultural, and socioeconomic resources; protection of existing designated uses related to the lake project; and economically viable mining methods. Under the reasonably foreseeable development scenario, granting of the LBAs would result in the removal, by room-and-pillar mining methods, of approximately 76 million in-place tons of coal, providing 26.3 million clean recoverable tons of coal. Under the applicants' proposals, mining would proceed over 10 to 15 years. All disturbed land would be reclaimed following closure of the mines. In addition to granting of the LBAs, the proposed action and preferred alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Granting the leases would extend the mine life of the applicants' existing, adjoining operations, sustain viable rural economics in the vicinity of the lease tracts, and generate coal from federal estate, a traditional source of coal in the United States, to help satisfy the nation's energy needs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Aboveground facilities, including the waste rock and overburden pile, access roads, and other mining and transportation infrastructure would displace soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Surface disturbances would exacerbate erosion and sedimentation within the watershed. Potentially significant levels of acids could leach from the mine and waste rock storage facility, resulting in degradation of downstream water quality and of the associated fish habitat and potential degradation of the groundwater aquifer. Geologic structures would be destroyed, and paleontological resources would be lost. The use of room-and-pillar mining would engender the likelihood of subsidence. Noise, aboveground mining infrastructure, and equipment operating during mining would degrade the recreational experience of visitors to East Lynn Lake. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080242, 598 pages and maps, June 18, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-21
KW  - Acids
KW  - Coal
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Hazard Surveys
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Noise
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - East Lynn Lake
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382680?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LYNN+LAKE+COAL+LEASE%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=EAST+LYNN+LAKE+COAL+LEASE%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREETS AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE AND MADISON DRIVE IN NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 1 of 5]
T2  - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREETS AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE AND MADISON DRIVE IN NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
AN  - 36382107; 13485-080247_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the National Museum of African-American History and Culture between 14th and 15th streets and Constitution Avenue and Madison Drive in Northwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed by the Smithsonian Institution. The project would provide and operate a permanent facility on the Washington Monument Grounds within the Smithsonian Institution on a five-acre parcel. Issues addressed in selecting the site and the building design include those related to massing (the form of a building conveying proportion and size), building height, setback and alignment, outdoor program space, and the viewshed. In addition the Smithsonian Institution developed eight overarching principles that provided a foundation for the development of alternatives, guided their refinement, and served as criteria for success; these principles are related to physical character, mission and program appropriateness, monumental context, urban design principles associated with physical context, historic and cultural resource protection, visitor use and access, visitor experience, and operational functionality. This final EIS considers seven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative. Depending on the action alternative considered, the building would rise 60 to 105 feet above street level, providing for five to eight floors above grade and two to three floors below grade. The facility would contain 350,000 to 430,000 square feet. The north-south building orientation would align with the National Museum of American History's (NMAH) main building mass under three alternatives, the NMAH's north facade building mass under one alternative; and with no surrounding building under two alternatives. The east-west building orientation would align with the protecting portico of the Department of Commerce, the southwest facade of the Washington Monument, or 14th Street, or would be unaligned with respect to east-west orientation. Aesthetically, Alternative 1 would result in contextual massing the explicitly related to the pattern of buildings fronting the National Mall. Alternative 2 would be less convention in form and bridge the axis of the Mall with the north-south axis of open spaces leading to the White House. Alternative 3 would provide a more complex design, with the potential for buildings that look very different from a variety of locations. Alternative 4 would provide two distinct aesthetic experiences, blending into the landscape towards the Monument, while exhibiting more traditional building facades at the intersection of Constitution Avenue and 14th Street. Alternative 5 would provide for a bifurcated structure with varying heights, relating to context through building and spatial orientation rather than building or height alignment. Alternative 6 would offer a minimized visible mass and a soft edge along the southwest facade that would be aligned with 15th Street and Madison Drive, deferring to the presence of the Washington Monument. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The museum would be dedicated to the collection, preservation, research, and exhibition of American historical and cultural materials, reflecting the breadth and depth of the experience of individuals of African descent living in the United States. It would constitute the only institution providing a national meeting place for Americans to learn about the history and culture of African-Americans and their contributions to and relationship with every aspect of our national life. Increased visitation to the District of Columbia due to the attraction of the museum would boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The museum would displace an open space on the Washington Monument grounds of the National Mall, altering the historic boundaries of the grounds and altering the spatial organization of the grounds by diminishing the prominence of the Washington Monument as a central organizing feature. Significant impacts would also occur for buildings and structures located within the Monument grounds as well as the Federal Triangle along Constitution Avenue. Vegetation and alternative land uses would be removed. The viewshed and specific vistas would be altered. The museum would be situated in an area in violation of federal standards regarding ozone and particulate matter. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-184). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0090D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080247, Final EIS--401 pages (oversized), Appendices--324 pages (oversized, June 18, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: SI 0495801A
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Museums
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2003, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382107?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMITHSONIAN+INSTITUTION+NATIONAL+MUSEUM+OF+AFRICAN-AMERICAN+HISTORY+AND+CULTURE%2C+BETWEEN+14TH+AND+15TH+STREETS+AND+CONSTITUTION+AVENUE+AND+MADISON+DRIVE+IN+NORTHWEST+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SMITHSONIAN+INSTITUTION+NATIONAL+MUSEUM+OF+AFRICAN-AMERICAN+HISTORY+AND+CULTURE%2C+BETWEEN+14TH+AND+15TH+STREETS+AND+CONSTITUTION+AVENUE+AND+MADISON+DRIVE+IN+NORTHWEST+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 18, 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.
AN  - 36415753; 13478
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 MFS lands as o[pen 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 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 080240, Draft Programmatic Analysis--612 pages, Analysis for Pending Lease Applications--397 pages, Appendices, 389 pages, June 13, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-22
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/36415753?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-13&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 13, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WILD CAVE NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, CUSTER COUNTY, MONTANA.
AN  - 36410296; 13475
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an elk population management plan for the Wind Cave National Park of Custer County, South Dakota is proposed. The 28,295-acre park lies in the southwest corner of the state in the southern Black Hills region. In addition to extraordinary cave resources, the park contains a variety of surface natural and cultural resources. The park's mixed-grass prairie and ponderosa pine forest provides habitat for elk, bison, pronghorn, deer, coyotes, and black-tailed prairie dogs. The population of elk inhabiting the park is largely uncontrolled by national predation, hunting, or other forces that may have historically kept the number or animals low. As a result of the lack of natural population controls, the elk herd has grown so rapidly that it threatens park resources and depredates crops on neighboring farmlands. In the past, the parks primary elk management tool was the relocation of elk to other areas outside the part. However, the concurrent discovery of a chronic wasting disease (CWD) among elk wintering in the park and a 2002 memo from the National Park Service Director (NPS 2002b) prohibiting the movement of life animals when a population is known to be infected with CWD, relocation is no longer an option. Therefore, this EIS planning process has been undertaken to examine alternatives to maintain the elk herd at a size such that vegetation, other ungulates, and wildlife, park neighbors, and other park resources would not experience damage due to excessive numbers of elk. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), three action alternatives for initial herd reduction, and two alternatives addressing maintenance of herd size following the initial herd reduction. The two initial herd reduction alternatives would be use as maintenance management plans as well. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would make use of gates to keep elk that move out of the park outside the park through hunting season. This would allow hunters to cull the herd without violating park hunting restrictions. Alternative C would provide for the rounding up and shipment of live elk to a euthanization processing facility or euthanize elk on-site in the park. Alternative D would use authorized sharpshooters inside the park. Alternatives E and F would maintain the size of the herd through either sterilization of a select number of female elk or through the use of chemical contraceptives. The selected alternative plan would guide policy for the adaptive management of elk inhabiting the park, as well as providing a strategy for the integration of monitoring and research, over the next 15 to 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would reduce the elk herd to a safe, manageable size, removing pressure on forage for other wildlife habitat, potential for epidemic CWD within the herd, and excessive damage to wild plants and to crops on private farmland lying outside the park boundaries. Moreover, the expansion of the out-of-park herd would increase recreational hunting opportunities southwest South Dakota. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Even at lower levels of elk herd size. browsing of aspen, oak, and cottonwoods could still prevent their regeneration and could result in a decrease and perhaps loss of this species from certain areas within the park. Soil erosion would be exacerbated in areas where elk congregate. Removal of elk from the park would reduce opportunities for recreational elk viewing. Reduced visitation due to negative public perception of the elk population control program could significantly reduce tourists expenditures in the area. Elk damage to private property contiguous with the park would continue to be a nuisance and costly to federal programs instituted to indemnify the owners of damaged property. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080237, 431 pages, June 13, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-25
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Montana
KW  - Wild Cave National Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36410296?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WILD+CAVE+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=WILD+CAVE+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Hot Springs, South Dakota; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 13, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WILD CAVE NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, CUSTER COUNTY, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - WILD CAVE NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, CUSTER COUNTY, MONTANA.
AN  - 36400803; 13475-080237_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an elk population management plan for the Wind Cave National Park of Custer County, South Dakota is proposed. The 28,295-acre park lies in the southwest corner of the state in the southern Black Hills region. In addition to extraordinary cave resources, the park contains a variety of surface natural and cultural resources. The park's mixed-grass prairie and ponderosa pine forest provides habitat for elk, bison, pronghorn, deer, coyotes, and black-tailed prairie dogs. The population of elk inhabiting the park is largely uncontrolled by national predation, hunting, or other forces that may have historically kept the number or animals low. As a result of the lack of natural population controls, the elk herd has grown so rapidly that it threatens park resources and depredates crops on neighboring farmlands. In the past, the parks primary elk management tool was the relocation of elk to other areas outside the part. However, the concurrent discovery of a chronic wasting disease (CWD) among elk wintering in the park and a 2002 memo from the National Park Service Director (NPS 2002b) prohibiting the movement of life animals when a population is known to be infected with CWD, relocation is no longer an option. Therefore, this EIS planning process has been undertaken to examine alternatives to maintain the elk herd at a size such that vegetation, other ungulates, and wildlife, park neighbors, and other park resources would not experience damage due to excessive numbers of elk. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), three action alternatives for initial herd reduction, and two alternatives addressing maintenance of herd size following the initial herd reduction. The two initial herd reduction alternatives would be use as maintenance management plans as well. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would make use of gates to keep elk that move out of the park outside the park through hunting season. This would allow hunters to cull the herd without violating park hunting restrictions. Alternative C would provide for the rounding up and shipment of live elk to a euthanization processing facility or euthanize elk on-site in the park. Alternative D would use authorized sharpshooters inside the park. Alternatives E and F would maintain the size of the herd through either sterilization of a select number of female elk or through the use of chemical contraceptives. The selected alternative plan would guide policy for the adaptive management of elk inhabiting the park, as well as providing a strategy for the integration of monitoring and research, over the next 15 to 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would reduce the elk herd to a safe, manageable size, removing pressure on forage for other wildlife habitat, potential for epidemic CWD within the herd, and excessive damage to wild plants and to crops on private farmland lying outside the park boundaries. Moreover, the expansion of the out-of-park herd would increase recreational hunting opportunities southwest South Dakota. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Even at lower levels of elk herd size. browsing of aspen, oak, and cottonwoods could still prevent their regeneration and could result in a decrease and perhaps loss of this species from certain areas within the park. Soil erosion would be exacerbated in areas where elk congregate. Removal of elk from the park would reduce opportunities for recreational elk viewing. Reduced visitation due to negative public perception of the elk population control program could significantly reduce tourists expenditures in the area. Elk damage to private property contiguous with the park would continue to be a nuisance and costly to federal programs instituted to indemnify the owners of damaged property. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080237, 431 pages, June 13, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-25
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Montana
KW  - Wild Cave National Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36400803?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WILD+CAVE+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=WILD+CAVE+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Hot Springs, South Dakota; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 13, 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 5]
T2  - GEOTHERMAL LEASING IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES, ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING.
AN  - 36393540; 13478-080240_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 MFS lands as o[pen 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 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 080240, Draft Programmatic Analysis--612 pages, Analysis for Pending Lease Applications--397 pages, Appendices, 389 pages, June 13, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-22
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/36393540?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-13&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 13, 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 5 of 5]
T2  - GEOTHERMAL LEASING IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES, ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING.
AN  - 36393229; 13478-080240_0005
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 MFS lands as o[pen 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 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 080240, Draft Programmatic Analysis--612 pages, Analysis for Pending Lease Applications--397 pages, Appendices, 389 pages, June 13, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-22
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/36393229?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-13&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 13, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WILD CAVE NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, CUSTER COUNTY, MONTANA. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - WILD CAVE NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, CUSTER COUNTY, MONTANA.
AN  - 36393020; 13475-080237_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an elk population management plan for the Wind Cave National Park of Custer County, South Dakota is proposed. The 28,295-acre park lies in the southwest corner of the state in the southern Black Hills region. In addition to extraordinary cave resources, the park contains a variety of surface natural and cultural resources. The park's mixed-grass prairie and ponderosa pine forest provides habitat for elk, bison, pronghorn, deer, coyotes, and black-tailed prairie dogs. The population of elk inhabiting the park is largely uncontrolled by national predation, hunting, or other forces that may have historically kept the number or animals low. As a result of the lack of natural population controls, the elk herd has grown so rapidly that it threatens park resources and depredates crops on neighboring farmlands. In the past, the parks primary elk management tool was the relocation of elk to other areas outside the part. However, the concurrent discovery of a chronic wasting disease (CWD) among elk wintering in the park and a 2002 memo from the National Park Service Director (NPS 2002b) prohibiting the movement of life animals when a population is known to be infected with CWD, relocation is no longer an option. Therefore, this EIS planning process has been undertaken to examine alternatives to maintain the elk herd at a size such that vegetation, other ungulates, and wildlife, park neighbors, and other park resources would not experience damage due to excessive numbers of elk. Six alternatives are considered in this draft EIS, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), three action alternatives for initial herd reduction, and two alternatives addressing maintenance of herd size following the initial herd reduction. The two initial herd reduction alternatives would be use as maintenance management plans as well. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would make use of gates to keep elk that move out of the park outside the park through hunting season. This would allow hunters to cull the herd without violating park hunting restrictions. Alternative C would provide for the rounding up and shipment of live elk to a euthanization processing facility or euthanize elk on-site in the park. Alternative D would use authorized sharpshooters inside the park. Alternatives E and F would maintain the size of the herd through either sterilization of a select number of female elk or through the use of chemical contraceptives. The selected alternative plan would guide policy for the adaptive management of elk inhabiting the park, as well as providing a strategy for the integration of monitoring and research, over the next 15 to 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would reduce the elk herd to a safe, manageable size, removing pressure on forage for other wildlife habitat, potential for epidemic CWD within the herd, and excessive damage to wild plants and to crops on private farmland lying outside the park boundaries. Moreover, the expansion of the out-of-park herd would increase recreational hunting opportunities southwest South Dakota. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Even at lower levels of elk herd size. browsing of aspen, oak, and cottonwoods could still prevent their regeneration and could result in a decrease and perhaps loss of this species from certain areas within the park. Soil erosion would be exacerbated in areas where elk congregate. Removal of elk from the park would reduce opportunities for recreational elk viewing. Reduced visitation due to negative public perception of the elk population control program could significantly reduce tourists expenditures in the area. Elk damage to private property contiguous with the park would continue to be a nuisance and costly to federal programs instituted to indemnify the owners of damaged property. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080237, 431 pages, June 13, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-25
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Montana
KW  - Wild Cave National Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36393020?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WILD+CAVE+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=WILD+CAVE+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Hot Springs, South Dakota; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 13, 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 5]
T2  - GEOTHERMAL LEASING IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES, ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING.
AN  - 36391746; 13478-080240_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 MFS lands as o[pen 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 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 080240, Draft Programmatic Analysis--612 pages, Analysis for Pending Lease Applications--397 pages, Appendices, 389 pages, June 13, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-22
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/36391746?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-13&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 13, 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 5]
T2  - GEOTHERMAL LEASING IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES, ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING.
AN  - 36391406; 13478-080240_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 MFS lands as o[pen 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 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 080240, Draft Programmatic Analysis--612 pages, Analysis for Pending Lease Applications--397 pages, Appendices, 389 pages, June 13, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-22
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/36391406?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-13&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 13, 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 1 of 5]
T2  - GEOTHERMAL LEASING IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES, ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING.
AN  - 36382725; 13478-080240_0001
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 MFS lands as o[pen 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 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 080240, Draft Programmatic Analysis--612 pages, Analysis for Pending Lease Applications--397 pages, Appendices, 389 pages, June 13, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-22
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/36382725?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-13&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 13, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SPOKANE TRIBE'S INTEGRATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (IRMP) FOR THE SPOKANE INDIAN RESERVATION, STEVENS COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36416104; 13474
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised integrated resource management plan (IRMP) for the land within the jurisdiction of the Spokane Tribe of the Indians, Stevens County, Washington is proposed. The first IRMP was formulated to guide management decisions from 1995 to 2004. Since 1994, several departments have been established and have gained expertise in managing the reservation's resources. On- and off-reservation tribal enrollment has steadily increased, and demands for access to land and natural resources have increased and are, in some cases, competing with one another. The IRMP would outline specific policies for land uses, natural resources, economic development, cultural resources protection and interpretation, and other values across the 157,000-acre Spokane Indian Reservation for the next 10 years. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would focus on resource preservation and cultural values protection. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, would emphasize preservation of all future uses, with outcome-based performance to balance ecological and cultural values against the need for income. The preferred alternative would balance ecological and cultural values with the need for timber-related income until an external source of revenue could be established, primarily off the reservation. The alternative would continue the current level of timber harvest, but include more native plant protection, improved slash treatment and other forest modifications, additions to wildlife areas, and logging with smaller forest openings, allowing for no clearcuts of openings larger than three acres unless it could be demonstrated that large openings are required for forest health reasons. Specific program proposals would address the land base, geologic resources, landscape and aesthetic values preservation, cultural resources preservation and interpretation, groundwater quality and hydrogeology, surface water quality, fisheries, wildlife, ranges, pesticide and hazardous substances protections, agricultural uses, forestry, fire use and control, recreational resources, housing, utilities, general economic development, and the road transportation system. Alternative 4 would emphasize growth and economic development. Alternative 5 would maximize individuals' freedom to develop land and resources within the existing regulatory framework. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed IRMP revision would incorporate new information and new expertise, providing coordination across tribal and federal departments and resources to meet the goals of protecting the tribe's land and resources. More specifically, the plan would preserve cultural values and natural resources to support traditional tribal lifeways; preserve future land use options; retain and expand the land base owned by the tribe; protect the health, security, and general welfare of the tribe; and comply with all tribal and federal regulations. Emphasis would be placed on individual program management plans with clear goals and specific objectives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative use of the resource base, particularly timber harvest, would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and disturb soils, leading periodically to substantial short-term increases in sediment levels in receiving surface waters. Prescribed burning would have similar impacts on soils and vegetation and would result in significant short-term degradation of local air quality. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0541D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080236, 237 pages, June 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Fisheries Management
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Housing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Washington
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36416104?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE%27S+INTEGRATED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+%28IRMP%29+FOR+THE+SPOKANE+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+STEVENS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE%27S+INTEGRATED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+%28IRMP%29+FOR+THE+SPOKANE+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+STEVENS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Wellpinit, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SPOKANE TRIBE'S INTEGRATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (IRMP) FOR THE SPOKANE INDIAN RESERVATION, STEVENS COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - SPOKANE TRIBE'S INTEGRATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (IRMP) FOR THE SPOKANE INDIAN RESERVATION, STEVENS COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36383744; 13474-080236_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised integrated resource management plan (IRMP) for the land within the jurisdiction of the Spokane Tribe of the Indians, Stevens County, Washington is proposed. The first IRMP was formulated to guide management decisions from 1995 to 2004. Since 1994, several departments have been established and have gained expertise in managing the reservation's resources. On- and off-reservation tribal enrollment has steadily increased, and demands for access to land and natural resources have increased and are, in some cases, competing with one another. The IRMP would outline specific policies for land uses, natural resources, economic development, cultural resources protection and interpretation, and other values across the 157,000-acre Spokane Indian Reservation for the next 10 years. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would focus on resource preservation and cultural values protection. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, would emphasize preservation of all future uses, with outcome-based performance to balance ecological and cultural values against the need for income. The preferred alternative would balance ecological and cultural values with the need for timber-related income until an external source of revenue could be established, primarily off the reservation. The alternative would continue the current level of timber harvest, but include more native plant protection, improved slash treatment and other forest modifications, additions to wildlife areas, and logging with smaller forest openings, allowing for no clearcuts of openings larger than three acres unless it could be demonstrated that large openings are required for forest health reasons. Specific program proposals would address the land base, geologic resources, landscape and aesthetic values preservation, cultural resources preservation and interpretation, groundwater quality and hydrogeology, surface water quality, fisheries, wildlife, ranges, pesticide and hazardous substances protections, agricultural uses, forestry, fire use and control, recreational resources, housing, utilities, general economic development, and the road transportation system. Alternative 4 would emphasize growth and economic development. Alternative 5 would maximize individuals' freedom to develop land and resources within the existing regulatory framework. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed IRMP revision would incorporate new information and new expertise, providing coordination across tribal and federal departments and resources to meet the goals of protecting the tribe's land and resources. More specifically, the plan would preserve cultural values and natural resources to support traditional tribal lifeways; preserve future land use options; retain and expand the land base owned by the tribe; protect the health, security, and general welfare of the tribe; and comply with all tribal and federal regulations. Emphasis would be placed on individual program management plans with clear goals and specific objectives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative use of the resource base, particularly timber harvest, would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and disturb soils, leading periodically to substantial short-term increases in sediment levels in receiving surface waters. Prescribed burning would have similar impacts on soils and vegetation and would result in significant short-term degradation of local air quality. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0541D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080236, 237 pages, June 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Fisheries Management
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Housing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Washington
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383744?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE%27S+INTEGRATED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+%28IRMP%29+FOR+THE+SPOKANE+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+STEVENS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE%27S+INTEGRATED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+%28IRMP%29+FOR+THE+SPOKANE+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+STEVENS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Wellpinit, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DOSEWALLIPS ROAD WASHOUT PROJECT, HOOD CANAL RANGER DISTRICT, OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36413425; 13472
AB  - PURPOSE: The re-establishment of access previously provided by Forest Service Road (FSR) 2610 and Dosewallips Road in the Hood Canal Ranger District, Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park, Jefferson County, Washington is proposed to allow the public to reach to U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and National Park Service (NPS) recreational facilities in the area. FSR 2610 is a single-lane road with turnouts, surfaced with aggregate (crushed rock); Dosewallips Road is an extension of FSR 2610 in the Olympic National Park. A storm in January 2002 washed out 310 feet of FSR 2610, and the washout increased to 500 feet as measured in December 2007. The washout cutoff road access to approximately five miles of USFS and NPS roads, which had provided access to Elkhorn Campground in the Olympic National Forest and the Dosewallips Ranger Station in the Olympic National Park. Subsequent storms damaged 120 feet of Dosewallips Road about four miles west of the damage to FSR 2610. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to road management, geotechnical and geomorphic processes, soil productivity, aquatic species and habitat conditions, terrestrial species and habitat, botanical species and habitat, invasive plants, access and recreational uses, wilderness values, socioeconomics, visual quality, climate change soundscapes, and park operations. Originally, the proposed action was to rebuild FSR 2610 through the washout area, including a low-water crossing. Four alternatives, including the original proposal and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All action alternatives would re-establish both FSR 2610 and Dosewallips Road. The currently proposed action would reroute FSR 2610 along the hillslope above and to the north of the washout to restore access for passenger cars, recreational vehicles, and vehicles pulling trailers. Approximately, 0.84 mile of single-lane road with turnouts would be constructed using standard construction methods. Depending on the alternative selected, costs of the project range from $2.55 million to $8.7 million for FRS 2610 re-establishment, while the repair of Dosewallips Road is estimated to cost $350,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Re-establishing the roads would restore motorized access to developed recreation facilities on both the Olympic National Forest and the Olympic National Park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road construction and maintenance would result in the disturbance of soils and the destruction of vegetation and the resulting loss of wildlife habitat and increased sediment loadings in receiving flows within the watershed. Use of the road would create in conflicts between wildlife and recreationists. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080234, 321 pages, June 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Roads
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Olympic National Forest
KW  - Olympic National Park
KW  - Washington
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36413425?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DOSEWALLIPS+ROAD+WASHOUT+PROJECT%2C+HOOD+CANAL+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=DOSEWALLIPS+ROAD+WASHOUT+PROJECT%2C+HOOD+CANAL+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Olympic, Washington; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DOSEWALLIPS ROAD WASHOUT PROJECT, HOOD CANAL RANGER DISTRICT, OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - DOSEWALLIPS ROAD WASHOUT PROJECT, HOOD CANAL RANGER DISTRICT, OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36392945; 13472-080234_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The re-establishment of access previously provided by Forest Service Road (FSR) 2610 and Dosewallips Road in the Hood Canal Ranger District, Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park, Jefferson County, Washington is proposed to allow the public to reach to U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and National Park Service (NPS) recreational facilities in the area. FSR 2610 is a single-lane road with turnouts, surfaced with aggregate (crushed rock); Dosewallips Road is an extension of FSR 2610 in the Olympic National Park. A storm in January 2002 washed out 310 feet of FSR 2610, and the washout increased to 500 feet as measured in December 2007. The washout cutoff road access to approximately five miles of USFS and NPS roads, which had provided access to Elkhorn Campground in the Olympic National Forest and the Dosewallips Ranger Station in the Olympic National Park. Subsequent storms damaged 120 feet of Dosewallips Road about four miles west of the damage to FSR 2610. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to road management, geotechnical and geomorphic processes, soil productivity, aquatic species and habitat conditions, terrestrial species and habitat, botanical species and habitat, invasive plants, access and recreational uses, wilderness values, socioeconomics, visual quality, climate change soundscapes, and park operations. Originally, the proposed action was to rebuild FSR 2610 through the washout area, including a low-water crossing. Four alternatives, including the original proposal and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All action alternatives would re-establish both FSR 2610 and Dosewallips Road. The currently proposed action would reroute FSR 2610 along the hillslope above and to the north of the washout to restore access for passenger cars, recreational vehicles, and vehicles pulling trailers. Approximately, 0.84 mile of single-lane road with turnouts would be constructed using standard construction methods. Depending on the alternative selected, costs of the project range from $2.55 million to $8.7 million for FRS 2610 re-establishment, while the repair of Dosewallips Road is estimated to cost $350,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Re-establishing the roads would restore motorized access to developed recreation facilities on both the Olympic National Forest and the Olympic National Park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road construction and maintenance would result in the disturbance of soils and the destruction of vegetation and the resulting loss of wildlife habitat and increased sediment loadings in receiving flows within the watershed. Use of the road would create in conflicts between wildlife and recreationists. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080234, 321 pages, June 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Roads
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Olympic National Forest
KW  - Olympic National Park
KW  - Washington
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392945?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DOSEWALLIPS+ROAD+WASHOUT+PROJECT%2C+HOOD+CANAL+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=DOSEWALLIPS+ROAD+WASHOUT+PROJECT%2C+HOOD+CANAL+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Olympic, Washington; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 4 of 10]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36399434; 13464-080226_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0131D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080226, Volume 1--817 pages, Volume 2--799 pages, May 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36399434?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 6 of 10]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36393162; 13464-080226_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0131D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080226, Volume 1--817 pages, Volume 2--799 pages, May 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36393162?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 7 of 10]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36392997; 13464-080226_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0131D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080226, Volume 1--817 pages, Volume 2--799 pages, May 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392997?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 10]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36392901; 13464-080226_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0131D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080226, Volume 1--817 pages, Volume 2--799 pages, May 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392901?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 5 of 10]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36392193; 13464-080226_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0131D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080226, Volume 1--817 pages, Volume 2--799 pages, May 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392193?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 9 of 10]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36391295; 13464-080226_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0131D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080226, Volume 1--817 pages, Volume 2--799 pages, May 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 9
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391295?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 8 of 10]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36391154; 13464-080226_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0131D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080226, Volume 1--817 pages, Volume 2--799 pages, May 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 8
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391154?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 10]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36382262; 13464-080226_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0131D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080226, Volume 1--817 pages, Volume 2--799 pages, May 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382262?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 10]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36382176; 13464-080226_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0131D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080226, Volume 1--817 pages, Volume 2--799 pages, May 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382176?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080226/080226_0010.txt of 10]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36379990; 13464-080226_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0131D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080226, Volume 1--817 pages, Volume 2--799 pages, May 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080226/080226_0010.txt
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379990?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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 - Final. Preparation date: May 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 9 of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36396653; 13450-080212_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 9
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36396653?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 8 of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36396477; 13450-080212_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 8
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36396477?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 23 of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36392269; 13450-080212_0023
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 23
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392269?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 5 of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36391809; 13450-080212_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391809?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36391629; 13450-080212_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391629?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 19 of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36390708; 13450-080212_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 19
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390708?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 13 of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36390566; 13450-080212_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 13
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390566?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 6 of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36390445; 13450-080212_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390445?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 17 of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36389861; 13450-080212_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 17
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389861?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 11 of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36389532; 13450-080212_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 11
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389532?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 21 of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36384716; 13450-080212_0021
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 21
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384716?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 22 of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36384489; 13450-080212_0022
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 22
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384489?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080212/080212_0020.txt of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36384276; 13450-080212_0020
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080212/080212_0020.txt
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384276?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 25 of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36382523; 13450-080212_0025
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 25
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382523?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 18 of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36382454; 13450-080212_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 18
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382454?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 14 of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36382349; 13450-080212_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 14
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382349?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080212/080212_0010.txt of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36382191; 13450-080212_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080212/080212_0010.txt
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382191?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 16 of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36381032; 13450-080212_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 16
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381032?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 7 of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36380935; 13450-080212_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380935?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 24 of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36379485; 13450-080212_0024
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 24
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379485?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 15 of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36379162; 13450-080212_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 15
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379162?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 12 of 22]
T2  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36379068; 13450-080212_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 12
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379068?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 16374693; 13450
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this final EIS. Four of the development alternatives, alternatives A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0294D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080212, Final EIS--901 pages and maps, Appendices A through C (1)--615 pages, Appendix C(2)--2,211 pages, Appendix C(3)--2,087 pages, Appendices D through W--2,111 pages and maps, Appendix J (confidential)--97 pages, May 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374693?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36424520; 13437
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The 2005 alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the reserve. In addition, the alternative offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 95 percent of the available planning area available. Approximately 211,000 acres in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could be deferred to provide protection for fish and wildlife and the associated subsistence uses. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas all deep-water areas south of Teshekpuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or nonfish-bearing waters, subsistence use areas throughout the reserve, river setback areas, coastal areas, a designated caribou movement corridor, a southern caribou calving area, and seven lease area in the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This final supplement to the final EIS is necessitated by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which declared the cumulative impact analysis in the 2005 final EIS to be inadequate. The supplement considers four alternatives, including a No action Alternative (Alternative A). Depending on the alternative selected, 87 to 100 percent of the 4.6-million-acre NPR-A would be opened to oil and gas leasing. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources, namely, prescriptive and performance-based. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976.
JF  - EPA number: 080199, Volume 1--351 pages, Volume 2--641 pages, Volume 3--299 pages, Volume 4--555 pages, Volume 5--366 pages, Volume 6--Map Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-07/020+1610+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36424520?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE RED BLUFF DIVERSION DAM, TEHAMA, GLENN, COLUSA COUNTIES AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36407631; 13436
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of facilities to improve anadromous fish passage at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam on the Sacramento River in California is proposed. The dam creates a reservoir that covers portions of Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, and Yolo counties. Prior to the completion of the dam in the mid-1960s, anadromous fish enjoyed unimpeded passage through the current dam site. The dam created a barrier, impeding and delaying passage to spawning and rearing habitat upstream of the dam. The dominant feature of the dam is its gates. When the gates are lowered, the dam presents a barrier for both upstream- and downstream-migrating fish. Fish ladders, included in the original design, have proven ineffective at certain flow levels with respect to passage of anadromous fish to upstream spawning grounds. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative, known as the Gates-out Alternative, would eliminate the lowering of the gates, known as the "gates-in" period (May 15 through September 15). Improved water deliveries would be achieved through a combined pumping capacity of 2,500 cubic feet per second at two sites. Improvements in fish passage would be achieved through reduction in gate operations. Existing fish ladders would no longer operate. A conveyance facility across Red Bank Creek would be constructed to convey water from one of the pump stations. The project would incorporate an adaptive management plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would substantially improve the long-term availability to reliably pass anadromous fish and other species of concern, both upstream and downstream of the dam and substantially improve the long-term ability to reliably and cost-effectively move sufficient water into the Tehama-Colusa Canal and the Corning Canal systems to meet the needs of tithe associated water districts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project facilities would displace riparian land, freshwater marsh, and parkland, and habitat for federally protected species could be affected. One campground would be significantly affected, as would the recreational experience of users of the reservoir. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0037D, Volume 27, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080198, 66 pages and maps, CD-ROM, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-18
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Climatologic Assessments
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - Tehama-Colusa Canal
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36407631?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FISH+PASSAGE+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT+AT+THE+RED+BLUFF+DIVERSION+DAM%2C+TEHAMA%2C+GLENN%2C+COLUSA+COUNTIES+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FISH+PASSAGE+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT+AT+THE+RED+BLUFF+DIVERSION+DAM%2C+TEHAMA%2C+GLENN%2C+COLUSA+COUNTIES+AND+YOLO+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; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 1 of 18]
T2  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36397812; 13437-080199_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The 2005 alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the reserve. In addition, the alternative offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 95 percent of the available planning area available. Approximately 211,000 acres in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could be deferred to provide protection for fish and wildlife and the associated subsistence uses. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas all deep-water areas south of Teshekpuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or nonfish-bearing waters, subsistence use areas throughout the reserve, river setback areas, coastal areas, a designated caribou movement corridor, a southern caribou calving area, and seven lease area in the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This final supplement to the final EIS is necessitated by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which declared the cumulative impact analysis in the 2005 final EIS to be inadequate. The supplement considers four alternatives, including a No action Alternative (Alternative A). Depending on the alternative selected, 87 to 100 percent of the 4.6-million-acre NPR-A would be opened to oil and gas leasing. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources, namely, prescriptive and performance-based. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976.
JF  - EPA number: 080199, Volume 1--351 pages, Volume 2--641 pages, Volume 3--299 pages, Volume 4--555 pages, Volume 5--366 pages, Volume 6--Map Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-07/020+1610+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36397812?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LINCOLN COUNTY LAND ACT GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT AND UTILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - LINCOLN COUNTY LAND ACT GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT AND UTILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36397672; 13435-080197_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of a rights-of-way (ROWs) by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the Lincoln County Water District (LCWD) is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of the Lincoln County (Nevada) Land Act Groundwater Development Utility Right-of-Way Project. The project facilities would be located in southeastern Lincoln County, within or immediately adjacent to the 2,640-foot-wide utility corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA). Enacted on November 39, 2004, the LCCRDA designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for roads, wells, pipelines, and other infrastructure needs for the construction and operation of water conveyance systems in Lincoln County. LCWD, in cooperation with Lincoln County Power District No. 1 (LCPD) and the Lincoln County Telephone Company (LCT), would construct groundwater and ancillary facilities in order to pump and convey groundwater that has been permitted or may be permitted in the Clover Valley ad Tule Desert Hydrographic Areas for use by LCWD customers. In addition, Southwest Gas Corporation is proposing to construct and operate a natural gas pipeline and metering facility within the southernmost portion of the project corridor to serve planned development in the Lincoln County Land Act area, specifically, the lands that Congress mandated be sold by the BLM under Section 102 of the LCCRDA. ROW grants may be issued based on future agreements between LCWD and LCPD/LCT and the analysis in this EIS process. If a single ROW is granted, the LCWD would be responsible for construction of all the proposed facilities needed to develop ad transport groundwater subject to the terms and conditions of the grant. In the single ROW grant option, the LCWD would purchase electric and communication services from LCPD and LCT, respectively, as outlined in the appropriate contracts, but all facilities within the ROW would be owned and operated by LCWD. If multiple ROWs were issued, the LCWD, LCPD, and LCT facilities would be authorized under separate ROW grants. The ROW for Southwest Gas would be a separate grant issued pursuant to Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act. A single ROW issued to LCWD for the water production/delivery system, electrical distribution system, and fiber optic lines, would be issued in perpetuity pursuant to Title III of the LCCRDA and, in the case of facilities outside the boundaries of the ROW corridor, the Federal Land Management and Policy Act (FLMPA). Individual ROWs issued to the LCPD and LCT would be subject to the terms and conditions of the FLMPA and 43 CFR 280. In addition to the above-mentioned alternatives, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which no ROW grant would be issued. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would assist and support the energy, water supply, and telecommunications needs of local communities in Lincoln County and meet basic future economic development needs of the county. Construction activities would employ 160 workers for a period of two years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative, the facilities to be constructed would operate within a seismically active area. Construction activities would disturb 1,878 acres of desert soils and vegetation, resulting in the temporary loss of wildlife habitat and erosion and surface flow sedimentation. The pumping of groundwater would lower the groundwater table. Approximately 240 acres of vegetation would be permanently displaced, including 72 acres of Las Vegas buckwheat, a species under consideration for federal protection. Desert tortoise habitat would be disturbed temporarily across 848.6 acres of the ROW developments and permanently across 108 acres. Grazing operations and public uses of the area would be disrupted during construction activities. With respect to public access, the Clover Mountain and Mormon Mountains Wilderness Areas would be closed to visitors typically using Clover Valley and Tule Desert. The proposed action could affect 21 archaeological sites and two historic properties, all of which are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, Development Act (P.L. 108-424), Lincoln County Land Act, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080197, Draft EIS-387 pages, Maps and Figures-Oversize Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-23
KW  - Communication Systems
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Ely Management Area
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, Development Act, Compliance
KW  - Lincoln County Land Act, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36397672?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LINCOLN+COUNTY+LAND+ACT+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+AND+UTILITY+RIGHT-OF-WAY+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=LINCOLN+COUNTY+LAND+ACT+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+AND+UTILITY+RIGHT-OF-WAY+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 7 of 18]
T2  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36397471; 13437-080199_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The 2005 alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the reserve. In addition, the alternative offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 95 percent of the available planning area available. Approximately 211,000 acres in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could be deferred to provide protection for fish and wildlife and the associated subsistence uses. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas all deep-water areas south of Teshekpuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or nonfish-bearing waters, subsistence use areas throughout the reserve, river setback areas, coastal areas, a designated caribou movement corridor, a southern caribou calving area, and seven lease area in the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This final supplement to the final EIS is necessitated by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which declared the cumulative impact analysis in the 2005 final EIS to be inadequate. The supplement considers four alternatives, including a No action Alternative (Alternative A). Depending on the alternative selected, 87 to 100 percent of the 4.6-million-acre NPR-A would be opened to oil and gas leasing. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources, namely, prescriptive and performance-based. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976.
JF  - EPA number: 080199, Volume 1--351 pages, Volume 2--641 pages, Volume 3--299 pages, Volume 4--555 pages, Volume 5--366 pages, Volume 6--Map Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-07/020+1610+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36397471?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 16 of 18]
T2  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36392549; 13437-080199_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The 2005 alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the reserve. In addition, the alternative offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 95 percent of the available planning area available. Approximately 211,000 acres in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could be deferred to provide protection for fish and wildlife and the associated subsistence uses. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas all deep-water areas south of Teshekpuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or nonfish-bearing waters, subsistence use areas throughout the reserve, river setback areas, coastal areas, a designated caribou movement corridor, a southern caribou calving area, and seven lease area in the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This final supplement to the final EIS is necessitated by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which declared the cumulative impact analysis in the 2005 final EIS to be inadequate. The supplement considers four alternatives, including a No action Alternative (Alternative A). Depending on the alternative selected, 87 to 100 percent of the 4.6-million-acre NPR-A would be opened to oil and gas leasing. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources, namely, prescriptive and performance-based. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976.
JF  - EPA number: 080199, Volume 1--351 pages, Volume 2--641 pages, Volume 3--299 pages, Volume 4--555 pages, Volume 5--366 pages, Volume 6--Map Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 16
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-07/020+1610+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392549?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 11 of 18]
T2  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36392428; 13437-080199_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The 2005 alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the reserve. In addition, the alternative offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 95 percent of the available planning area available. Approximately 211,000 acres in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could be deferred to provide protection for fish and wildlife and the associated subsistence uses. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas all deep-water areas south of Teshekpuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or nonfish-bearing waters, subsistence use areas throughout the reserve, river setback areas, coastal areas, a designated caribou movement corridor, a southern caribou calving area, and seven lease area in the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This final supplement to the final EIS is necessitated by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which declared the cumulative impact analysis in the 2005 final EIS to be inadequate. The supplement considers four alternatives, including a No action Alternative (Alternative A). Depending on the alternative selected, 87 to 100 percent of the 4.6-million-acre NPR-A would be opened to oil and gas leasing. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources, namely, prescriptive and performance-based. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976.
JF  - EPA number: 080199, Volume 1--351 pages, Volume 2--641 pages, Volume 3--299 pages, Volume 4--555 pages, Volume 5--366 pages, Volume 6--Map Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 11
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-07/020+1610+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392428?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 2 of 18]
T2  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36391281; 13437-080199_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The 2005 alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the reserve. In addition, the alternative offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 95 percent of the available planning area available. Approximately 211,000 acres in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could be deferred to provide protection for fish and wildlife and the associated subsistence uses. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas all deep-water areas south of Teshekpuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or nonfish-bearing waters, subsistence use areas throughout the reserve, river setback areas, coastal areas, a designated caribou movement corridor, a southern caribou calving area, and seven lease area in the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This final supplement to the final EIS is necessitated by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which declared the cumulative impact analysis in the 2005 final EIS to be inadequate. The supplement considers four alternatives, including a No action Alternative (Alternative A). Depending on the alternative selected, 87 to 100 percent of the 4.6-million-acre NPR-A would be opened to oil and gas leasing. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources, namely, prescriptive and performance-based. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976.
JF  - EPA number: 080199, Volume 1--351 pages, Volume 2--641 pages, Volume 3--299 pages, Volume 4--555 pages, Volume 5--366 pages, Volume 6--Map Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-07/020+1610+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391281?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 3 of 18]
T2  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36390697; 13437-080199_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The 2005 alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the reserve. In addition, the alternative offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 95 percent of the available planning area available. Approximately 211,000 acres in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could be deferred to provide protection for fish and wildlife and the associated subsistence uses. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas all deep-water areas south of Teshekpuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or nonfish-bearing waters, subsistence use areas throughout the reserve, river setback areas, coastal areas, a designated caribou movement corridor, a southern caribou calving area, and seven lease area in the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This final supplement to the final EIS is necessitated by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which declared the cumulative impact analysis in the 2005 final EIS to be inadequate. The supplement considers four alternatives, including a No action Alternative (Alternative A). Depending on the alternative selected, 87 to 100 percent of the 4.6-million-acre NPR-A would be opened to oil and gas leasing. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources, namely, prescriptive and performance-based. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976.
JF  - EPA number: 080199, Volume 1--351 pages, Volume 2--641 pages, Volume 3--299 pages, Volume 4--555 pages, Volume 5--366 pages, Volume 6--Map Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-07/020+1610+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390697?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 14 of 18]
T2  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36390495; 13437-080199_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The 2005 alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the reserve. In addition, the alternative offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 95 percent of the available planning area available. Approximately 211,000 acres in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could be deferred to provide protection for fish and wildlife and the associated subsistence uses. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas all deep-water areas south of Teshekpuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or nonfish-bearing waters, subsistence use areas throughout the reserve, river setback areas, coastal areas, a designated caribou movement corridor, a southern caribou calving area, and seven lease area in the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This final supplement to the final EIS is necessitated by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which declared the cumulative impact analysis in the 2005 final EIS to be inadequate. The supplement considers four alternatives, including a No action Alternative (Alternative A). Depending on the alternative selected, 87 to 100 percent of the 4.6-million-acre NPR-A would be opened to oil and gas leasing. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources, namely, prescriptive and performance-based. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976.
JF  - EPA number: 080199, Volume 1--351 pages, Volume 2--641 pages, Volume 3--299 pages, Volume 4--555 pages, Volume 5--366 pages, Volume 6--Map Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 14
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-07/020+1610+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390495?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 12 of 18]
T2  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36390379; 13437-080199_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The 2005 alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the reserve. In addition, the alternative offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 95 percent of the available planning area available. Approximately 211,000 acres in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could be deferred to provide protection for fish and wildlife and the associated subsistence uses. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas all deep-water areas south of Teshekpuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or nonfish-bearing waters, subsistence use areas throughout the reserve, river setback areas, coastal areas, a designated caribou movement corridor, a southern caribou calving area, and seven lease area in the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This final supplement to the final EIS is necessitated by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which declared the cumulative impact analysis in the 2005 final EIS to be inadequate. The supplement considers four alternatives, including a No action Alternative (Alternative A). Depending on the alternative selected, 87 to 100 percent of the 4.6-million-acre NPR-A would be opened to oil and gas leasing. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources, namely, prescriptive and performance-based. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976.
JF  - EPA number: 080199, Volume 1--351 pages, Volume 2--641 pages, Volume 3--299 pages, Volume 4--555 pages, Volume 5--366 pages, Volume 6--Map Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 12
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-07/020+1610+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390379?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080199/080199_0010.txt of 18]
T2  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36390260; 13437-080199_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The 2005 alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the reserve. In addition, the alternative offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 95 percent of the available planning area available. Approximately 211,000 acres in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could be deferred to provide protection for fish and wildlife and the associated subsistence uses. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas all deep-water areas south of Teshekpuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or nonfish-bearing waters, subsistence use areas throughout the reserve, river setback areas, coastal areas, a designated caribou movement corridor, a southern caribou calving area, and seven lease area in the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This final supplement to the final EIS is necessitated by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which declared the cumulative impact analysis in the 2005 final EIS to be inadequate. The supplement considers four alternatives, including a No action Alternative (Alternative A). Depending on the alternative selected, 87 to 100 percent of the 4.6-million-acre NPR-A would be opened to oil and gas leasing. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources, namely, prescriptive and performance-based. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976.
JF  - EPA number: 080199, Volume 1--351 pages, Volume 2--641 pages, Volume 3--299 pages, Volume 4--555 pages, Volume 5--366 pages, Volume 6--Map Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080199/080199_0010.txt
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-07/020+1610+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390260?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 18 of 18]
T2  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36390174; 13437-080199_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The 2005 alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the reserve. In addition, the alternative offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 95 percent of the available planning area available. Approximately 211,000 acres in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could be deferred to provide protection for fish and wildlife and the associated subsistence uses. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas all deep-water areas south of Teshekpuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or nonfish-bearing waters, subsistence use areas throughout the reserve, river setback areas, coastal areas, a designated caribou movement corridor, a southern caribou calving area, and seven lease area in the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This final supplement to the final EIS is necessitated by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which declared the cumulative impact analysis in the 2005 final EIS to be inadequate. The supplement considers four alternatives, including a No action Alternative (Alternative A). Depending on the alternative selected, 87 to 100 percent of the 4.6-million-acre NPR-A would be opened to oil and gas leasing. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources, namely, prescriptive and performance-based. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976.
JF  - EPA number: 080199, Volume 1--351 pages, Volume 2--641 pages, Volume 3--299 pages, Volume 4--555 pages, Volume 5--366 pages, Volume 6--Map Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 18
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-07/020+1610+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390174?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 5 of 18]
T2  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36389785; 13437-080199_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The 2005 alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the reserve. In addition, the alternative offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 95 percent of the available planning area available. Approximately 211,000 acres in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could be deferred to provide protection for fish and wildlife and the associated subsistence uses. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas all deep-water areas south of Teshekpuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or nonfish-bearing waters, subsistence use areas throughout the reserve, river setback areas, coastal areas, a designated caribou movement corridor, a southern caribou calving area, and seven lease area in the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This final supplement to the final EIS is necessitated by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which declared the cumulative impact analysis in the 2005 final EIS to be inadequate. The supplement considers four alternatives, including a No action Alternative (Alternative A). Depending on the alternative selected, 87 to 100 percent of the 4.6-million-acre NPR-A would be opened to oil and gas leasing. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources, namely, prescriptive and performance-based. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976.
JF  - EPA number: 080199, Volume 1--351 pages, Volume 2--641 pages, Volume 3--299 pages, Volume 4--555 pages, Volume 5--366 pages, Volume 6--Map Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-07/020+1610+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389785?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 9 of 18]
T2  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36389613; 13437-080199_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The 2005 alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the reserve. In addition, the alternative offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 95 percent of the available planning area available. Approximately 211,000 acres in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could be deferred to provide protection for fish and wildlife and the associated subsistence uses. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas all deep-water areas south of Teshekpuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or nonfish-bearing waters, subsistence use areas throughout the reserve, river setback areas, coastal areas, a designated caribou movement corridor, a southern caribou calving area, and seven lease area in the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This final supplement to the final EIS is necessitated by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which declared the cumulative impact analysis in the 2005 final EIS to be inadequate. The supplement considers four alternatives, including a No action Alternative (Alternative A). Depending on the alternative selected, 87 to 100 percent of the 4.6-million-acre NPR-A would be opened to oil and gas leasing. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources, namely, prescriptive and performance-based. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976.
JF  - EPA number: 080199, Volume 1--351 pages, Volume 2--641 pages, Volume 3--299 pages, Volume 4--555 pages, Volume 5--366 pages, Volume 6--Map Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 9
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-07/020+1610+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389613?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 6 of 18]
T2  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36385075; 13437-080199_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The 2005 alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the reserve. In addition, the alternative offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 95 percent of the available planning area available. Approximately 211,000 acres in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could be deferred to provide protection for fish and wildlife and the associated subsistence uses. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas all deep-water areas south of Teshekpuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or nonfish-bearing waters, subsistence use areas throughout the reserve, river setback areas, coastal areas, a designated caribou movement corridor, a southern caribou calving area, and seven lease area in the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This final supplement to the final EIS is necessitated by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which declared the cumulative impact analysis in the 2005 final EIS to be inadequate. The supplement considers four alternatives, including a No action Alternative (Alternative A). Depending on the alternative selected, 87 to 100 percent of the 4.6-million-acre NPR-A would be opened to oil and gas leasing. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources, namely, prescriptive and performance-based. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976.
JF  - EPA number: 080199, Volume 1--351 pages, Volume 2--641 pages, Volume 3--299 pages, Volume 4--555 pages, Volume 5--366 pages, Volume 6--Map Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-07/020+1610+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36385075?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LINCOLN COUNTY LAND ACT GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT AND UTILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - LINCOLN COUNTY LAND ACT GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT AND UTILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36384990; 13435-080197_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of a rights-of-way (ROWs) by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the Lincoln County Water District (LCWD) is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of the Lincoln County (Nevada) Land Act Groundwater Development Utility Right-of-Way Project. The project facilities would be located in southeastern Lincoln County, within or immediately adjacent to the 2,640-foot-wide utility corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA). Enacted on November 39, 2004, the LCCRDA designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for roads, wells, pipelines, and other infrastructure needs for the construction and operation of water conveyance systems in Lincoln County. LCWD, in cooperation with Lincoln County Power District No. 1 (LCPD) and the Lincoln County Telephone Company (LCT), would construct groundwater and ancillary facilities in order to pump and convey groundwater that has been permitted or may be permitted in the Clover Valley ad Tule Desert Hydrographic Areas for use by LCWD customers. In addition, Southwest Gas Corporation is proposing to construct and operate a natural gas pipeline and metering facility within the southernmost portion of the project corridor to serve planned development in the Lincoln County Land Act area, specifically, the lands that Congress mandated be sold by the BLM under Section 102 of the LCCRDA. ROW grants may be issued based on future agreements between LCWD and LCPD/LCT and the analysis in this EIS process. If a single ROW is granted, the LCWD would be responsible for construction of all the proposed facilities needed to develop ad transport groundwater subject to the terms and conditions of the grant. In the single ROW grant option, the LCWD would purchase electric and communication services from LCPD and LCT, respectively, as outlined in the appropriate contracts, but all facilities within the ROW would be owned and operated by LCWD. If multiple ROWs were issued, the LCWD, LCPD, and LCT facilities would be authorized under separate ROW grants. The ROW for Southwest Gas would be a separate grant issued pursuant to Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act. A single ROW issued to LCWD for the water production/delivery system, electrical distribution system, and fiber optic lines, would be issued in perpetuity pursuant to Title III of the LCCRDA and, in the case of facilities outside the boundaries of the ROW corridor, the Federal Land Management and Policy Act (FLMPA). Individual ROWs issued to the LCPD and LCT would be subject to the terms and conditions of the FLMPA and 43 CFR 280. In addition to the above-mentioned alternatives, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which no ROW grant would be issued. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would assist and support the energy, water supply, and telecommunications needs of local communities in Lincoln County and meet basic future economic development needs of the county. Construction activities would employ 160 workers for a period of two years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative, the facilities to be constructed would operate within a seismically active area. Construction activities would disturb 1,878 acres of desert soils and vegetation, resulting in the temporary loss of wildlife habitat and erosion and surface flow sedimentation. The pumping of groundwater would lower the groundwater table. Approximately 240 acres of vegetation would be permanently displaced, including 72 acres of Las Vegas buckwheat, a species under consideration for federal protection. Desert tortoise habitat would be disturbed temporarily across 848.6 acres of the ROW developments and permanently across 108 acres. Grazing operations and public uses of the area would be disrupted during construction activities. With respect to public access, the Clover Mountain and Mormon Mountains Wilderness Areas would be closed to visitors typically using Clover Valley and Tule Desert. The proposed action could affect 21 archaeological sites and two historic properties, all of which are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, Development Act (P.L. 108-424), Lincoln County Land Act, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080197, Draft EIS-387 pages, Maps and Figures-Oversize Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-23
KW  - Communication Systems
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Ely Management Area
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, Development Act, Compliance
KW  - Lincoln County Land Act, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384990?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LINCOLN+COUNTY+LAND+ACT+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+AND+UTILITY+RIGHT-OF-WAY+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=LINCOLN+COUNTY+LAND+ACT+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+AND+UTILITY+RIGHT-OF-WAY+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 13 of 18]
T2  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36384692; 13437-080199_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The 2005 alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the reserve. In addition, the alternative offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 95 percent of the available planning area available. Approximately 211,000 acres in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could be deferred to provide protection for fish and wildlife and the associated subsistence uses. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas all deep-water areas south of Teshekpuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or nonfish-bearing waters, subsistence use areas throughout the reserve, river setback areas, coastal areas, a designated caribou movement corridor, a southern caribou calving area, and seven lease area in the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This final supplement to the final EIS is necessitated by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which declared the cumulative impact analysis in the 2005 final EIS to be inadequate. The supplement considers four alternatives, including a No action Alternative (Alternative A). Depending on the alternative selected, 87 to 100 percent of the 4.6-million-acre NPR-A would be opened to oil and gas leasing. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources, namely, prescriptive and performance-based. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976.
JF  - EPA number: 080199, Volume 1--351 pages, Volume 2--641 pages, Volume 3--299 pages, Volume 4--555 pages, Volume 5--366 pages, Volume 6--Map Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 13
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-07/020+1610+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384692?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 8 of 18]
T2  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36384608; 13437-080199_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The 2005 alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the reserve. In addition, the alternative offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 95 percent of the available planning area available. Approximately 211,000 acres in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could be deferred to provide protection for fish and wildlife and the associated subsistence uses. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas all deep-water areas south of Teshekpuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or nonfish-bearing waters, subsistence use areas throughout the reserve, river setback areas, coastal areas, a designated caribou movement corridor, a southern caribou calving area, and seven lease area in the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This final supplement to the final EIS is necessitated by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which declared the cumulative impact analysis in the 2005 final EIS to be inadequate. The supplement considers four alternatives, including a No action Alternative (Alternative A). Depending on the alternative selected, 87 to 100 percent of the 4.6-million-acre NPR-A would be opened to oil and gas leasing. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources, namely, prescriptive and performance-based. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976.
JF  - EPA number: 080199, Volume 1--351 pages, Volume 2--641 pages, Volume 3--299 pages, Volume 4--555 pages, Volume 5--366 pages, Volume 6--Map Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 8
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-07/020+1610+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384608?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 4 of 18]
T2  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36382772; 13437-080199_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The 2005 alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the reserve. In addition, the alternative offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 95 percent of the available planning area available. Approximately 211,000 acres in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could be deferred to provide protection for fish and wildlife and the associated subsistence uses. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas all deep-water areas south of Teshekpuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or nonfish-bearing waters, subsistence use areas throughout the reserve, river setback areas, coastal areas, a designated caribou movement corridor, a southern caribou calving area, and seven lease area in the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This final supplement to the final EIS is necessitated by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which declared the cumulative impact analysis in the 2005 final EIS to be inadequate. The supplement considers four alternatives, including a No action Alternative (Alternative A). Depending on the alternative selected, 87 to 100 percent of the 4.6-million-acre NPR-A would be opened to oil and gas leasing. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources, namely, prescriptive and performance-based. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976.
JF  - EPA number: 080199, Volume 1--351 pages, Volume 2--641 pages, Volume 3--299 pages, Volume 4--555 pages, Volume 5--366 pages, Volume 6--Map Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-07/020+1610+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382772?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE RED BLUFF DIVERSION DAM, TEHAMA, GLENN, COLUSA COUNTIES AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE RED BLUFF DIVERSION DAM, TEHAMA, GLENN, COLUSA COUNTIES AND YOLO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36381464; 13436-080198_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of facilities to improve anadromous fish passage at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam on the Sacramento River in California is proposed. The dam creates a reservoir that covers portions of Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, and Yolo counties. Prior to the completion of the dam in the mid-1960s, anadromous fish enjoyed unimpeded passage through the current dam site. The dam created a barrier, impeding and delaying passage to spawning and rearing habitat upstream of the dam. The dominant feature of the dam is its gates. When the gates are lowered, the dam presents a barrier for both upstream- and downstream-migrating fish. Fish ladders, included in the original design, have proven ineffective at certain flow levels with respect to passage of anadromous fish to upstream spawning grounds. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative, known as the Gates-out Alternative, would eliminate the lowering of the gates, known as the "gates-in" period (May 15 through September 15). Improved water deliveries would be achieved through a combined pumping capacity of 2,500 cubic feet per second at two sites. Improvements in fish passage would be achieved through reduction in gate operations. Existing fish ladders would no longer operate. A conveyance facility across Red Bank Creek would be constructed to convey water from one of the pump stations. The project would incorporate an adaptive management plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would substantially improve the long-term availability to reliably pass anadromous fish and other species of concern, both upstream and downstream of the dam and substantially improve the long-term ability to reliably and cost-effectively move sufficient water into the Tehama-Colusa Canal and the Corning Canal systems to meet the needs of tithe associated water districts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project facilities would displace riparian land, freshwater marsh, and parkland, and habitat for federally protected species could be affected. One campground would be significantly affected, as would the recreational experience of users of the reservoir. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0037D, Volume 27, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080198, 66 pages and maps, CD-ROM, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-18
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Climatologic Assessments
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - Tehama-Colusa Canal
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381464?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FISH+PASSAGE+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT+AT+THE+RED+BLUFF+DIVERSION+DAM%2C+TEHAMA%2C+GLENN%2C+COLUSA+COUNTIES+AND+YOLO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FISH+PASSAGE+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT+AT+THE+RED+BLUFF+DIVERSION+DAM%2C+TEHAMA%2C+GLENN%2C+COLUSA+COUNTIES+AND+YOLO+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; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LINCOLN COUNTY LAND ACT GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT AND UTILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - LINCOLN COUNTY LAND ACT GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT AND UTILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36381420; 13435-080197_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of a rights-of-way (ROWs) by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the Lincoln County Water District (LCWD) is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of the Lincoln County (Nevada) Land Act Groundwater Development Utility Right-of-Way Project. The project facilities would be located in southeastern Lincoln County, within or immediately adjacent to the 2,640-foot-wide utility corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA). Enacted on November 39, 2004, the LCCRDA designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for roads, wells, pipelines, and other infrastructure needs for the construction and operation of water conveyance systems in Lincoln County. LCWD, in cooperation with Lincoln County Power District No. 1 (LCPD) and the Lincoln County Telephone Company (LCT), would construct groundwater and ancillary facilities in order to pump and convey groundwater that has been permitted or may be permitted in the Clover Valley ad Tule Desert Hydrographic Areas for use by LCWD customers. In addition, Southwest Gas Corporation is proposing to construct and operate a natural gas pipeline and metering facility within the southernmost portion of the project corridor to serve planned development in the Lincoln County Land Act area, specifically, the lands that Congress mandated be sold by the BLM under Section 102 of the LCCRDA. ROW grants may be issued based on future agreements between LCWD and LCPD/LCT and the analysis in this EIS process. If a single ROW is granted, the LCWD would be responsible for construction of all the proposed facilities needed to develop ad transport groundwater subject to the terms and conditions of the grant. In the single ROW grant option, the LCWD would purchase electric and communication services from LCPD and LCT, respectively, as outlined in the appropriate contracts, but all facilities within the ROW would be owned and operated by LCWD. If multiple ROWs were issued, the LCWD, LCPD, and LCT facilities would be authorized under separate ROW grants. The ROW for Southwest Gas would be a separate grant issued pursuant to Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act. A single ROW issued to LCWD for the water production/delivery system, electrical distribution system, and fiber optic lines, would be issued in perpetuity pursuant to Title III of the LCCRDA and, in the case of facilities outside the boundaries of the ROW corridor, the Federal Land Management and Policy Act (FLMPA). Individual ROWs issued to the LCPD and LCT would be subject to the terms and conditions of the FLMPA and 43 CFR 280. In addition to the above-mentioned alternatives, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which no ROW grant would be issued. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would assist and support the energy, water supply, and telecommunications needs of local communities in Lincoln County and meet basic future economic development needs of the county. Construction activities would employ 160 workers for a period of two years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative, the facilities to be constructed would operate within a seismically active area. Construction activities would disturb 1,878 acres of desert soils and vegetation, resulting in the temporary loss of wildlife habitat and erosion and surface flow sedimentation. The pumping of groundwater would lower the groundwater table. Approximately 240 acres of vegetation would be permanently displaced, including 72 acres of Las Vegas buckwheat, a species under consideration for federal protection. Desert tortoise habitat would be disturbed temporarily across 848.6 acres of the ROW developments and permanently across 108 acres. Grazing operations and public uses of the area would be disrupted during construction activities. With respect to public access, the Clover Mountain and Mormon Mountains Wilderness Areas would be closed to visitors typically using Clover Valley and Tule Desert. The proposed action could affect 21 archaeological sites and two historic properties, all of which are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, Development Act (P.L. 108-424), Lincoln County Land Act, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080197, Draft EIS-387 pages, Maps and Figures-Oversize Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-23
KW  - Communication Systems
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Ely Management Area
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, Development Act, Compliance
KW  - Lincoln County Land Act, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381420?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LINCOLN+COUNTY+LAND+ACT+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+AND+UTILITY+RIGHT-OF-WAY+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=LINCOLN+COUNTY+LAND+ACT+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+AND+UTILITY+RIGHT-OF-WAY+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 15 of 18]
T2  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36381341; 13437-080199_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The 2005 alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the reserve. In addition, the alternative offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 95 percent of the available planning area available. Approximately 211,000 acres in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could be deferred to provide protection for fish and wildlife and the associated subsistence uses. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas all deep-water areas south of Teshekpuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or nonfish-bearing waters, subsistence use areas throughout the reserve, river setback areas, coastal areas, a designated caribou movement corridor, a southern caribou calving area, and seven lease area in the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This final supplement to the final EIS is necessitated by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which declared the cumulative impact analysis in the 2005 final EIS to be inadequate. The supplement considers four alternatives, including a No action Alternative (Alternative A). Depending on the alternative selected, 87 to 100 percent of the 4.6-million-acre NPR-A would be opened to oil and gas leasing. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources, namely, prescriptive and performance-based. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976.
JF  - EPA number: 080199, Volume 1--351 pages, Volume 2--641 pages, Volume 3--299 pages, Volume 4--555 pages, Volume 5--366 pages, Volume 6--Map Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 15
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-07/020+1610+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381341?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 17 of 18]
T2  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36381204; 13437-080199_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The 2005 alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the reserve. In addition, the alternative offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 95 percent of the available planning area available. Approximately 211,000 acres in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could be deferred to provide protection for fish and wildlife and the associated subsistence uses. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas all deep-water areas south of Teshekpuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or nonfish-bearing waters, subsistence use areas throughout the reserve, river setback areas, coastal areas, a designated caribou movement corridor, a southern caribou calving area, and seven lease area in the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This final supplement to the final EIS is necessitated by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which declared the cumulative impact analysis in the 2005 final EIS to be inadequate. The supplement considers four alternatives, including a No action Alternative (Alternative A). Depending on the alternative selected, 87 to 100 percent of the 4.6-million-acre NPR-A would be opened to oil and gas leasing. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources, namely, prescriptive and performance-based. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976.
JF  - EPA number: 080199, Volume 1--351 pages, Volume 2--641 pages, Volume 3--299 pages, Volume 4--555 pages, Volume 5--366 pages, Volume 6--Map Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 17
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-07/020+1610+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381204?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LINCOLN COUNTY LAND ACT GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT AND UTILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 16385522; 13435
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of a rights-of-way (ROWs) by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the Lincoln County Water District (LCWD) is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of the Lincoln County (Nevada) Land Act Groundwater Development Utility Right-of-Way Project. The project facilities would be located in southeastern Lincoln County, within or immediately adjacent to the 2,640-foot-wide utility corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA). Enacted on November 39, 2004, the LCCRDA designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for roads, wells, pipelines, and other infrastructure needs for the construction and operation of water conveyance systems in Lincoln County. LCWD, in cooperation with Lincoln County Power District No. 1 (LCPD) and the Lincoln County Telephone Company (LCT), would construct groundwater and ancillary facilities in order to pump and convey groundwater that has been permitted or may be permitted in the Clover Valley ad Tule Desert Hydrographic Areas for use by LCWD customers. In addition, Southwest Gas Corporation is proposing to construct and operate a natural gas pipeline and metering facility within the southernmost portion of the project corridor to serve planned development in the Lincoln County Land Act area, specifically, the lands that Congress mandated be sold by the BLM under Section 102 of the LCCRDA. ROW grants may be issued based on future agreements between LCWD and LCPD/LCT and the analysis in this EIS process. If a single ROW is granted, the LCWD would be responsible for construction of all the proposed facilities needed to develop ad transport groundwater subject to the terms and conditions of the grant. In the single ROW grant option, the LCWD would purchase electric and communication services from LCPD and LCT, respectively, as outlined in the appropriate contracts, but all facilities within the ROW would be owned and operated by LCWD. If multiple ROWs were issued, the LCWD, LCPD, and LCT facilities would be authorized under separate ROW grants. The ROW for Southwest Gas would be a separate grant issued pursuant to Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act. A single ROW issued to LCWD for the water production/delivery system, electrical distribution system, and fiber optic lines, would be issued in perpetuity pursuant to Title III of the LCCRDA and, in the case of facilities outside the boundaries of the ROW corridor, the Federal Land Management and Policy Act (FLMPA). Individual ROWs issued to the LCPD and LCT would be subject to the terms and conditions of the FLMPA and 43 CFR 280. In addition to the above-mentioned alternatives, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which no ROW grant would be issued. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would assist and support the energy, water supply, and telecommunications needs of local communities in Lincoln County and meet basic future economic development needs of the county. Construction activities would employ 160 workers for a period of two years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative, the facilities to be constructed would operate within a seismically active area. Construction activities would disturb 1,878 acres of desert soils and vegetation, resulting in the temporary loss of wildlife habitat and erosion and surface flow sedimentation. The pumping of groundwater would lower the groundwater table. Approximately 240 acres of vegetation would be permanently displaced, including 72 acres of Las Vegas buckwheat, a species under consideration for federal protection. Desert tortoise habitat would be disturbed temporarily across 848.6 acres of the ROW developments and permanently across 108 acres. Grazing operations and public uses of the area would be disrupted during construction activities. With respect to public access, the Clover Mountain and Mormon Mountains Wilderness Areas would be closed to visitors typically using Clover Valley and Tule Desert. The proposed action could affect 21 archaeological sites and two historic properties, all of which are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, Development Act (P.L. 108-424), Lincoln County Land Act, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080197, Draft EIS-387 pages, Maps and Figures-Oversize Supplement, May 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-23
KW  - Communication Systems
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Ely Management Area
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, Development Act, Compliance
KW  - Lincoln County Land Act, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16385522?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LINCOLN+COUNTY+LAND+ACT+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+AND+UTILITY+RIGHT-OF-WAY+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=LINCOLN+COUNTY+LAND+ACT+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+AND+UTILITY+RIGHT-OF-WAY+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 10]
T2  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36389672; 13424-080186_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Airports
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Housing
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Navigation Aids
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Safety
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Nellis Air Force Base
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389672?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 9 of 10]
T2  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36389278; 13424-080186_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 9
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Airports
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Housing
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Navigation Aids
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Safety
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Nellis Air Force Base
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389278?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 7 of 10]
T2  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36389175; 13424-080186_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Airports
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Housing
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Navigation Aids
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Safety
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Nellis Air Force Base
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389175?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 10]
T2  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36388938; 13424-080186_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Airports
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Housing
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Navigation Aids
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Safety
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Nellis Air Force Base
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388938?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 8 of 10]
T2  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36383717; 13424-080186_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 8
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Airports
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Housing
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Navigation Aids
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Safety
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Nellis Air Force Base
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383717?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 10]
T2  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36383638; 13424-080186_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Airports
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Housing
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Navigation Aids
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Safety
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Nellis Air Force Base
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383638?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080186/080186_0010.txt of 10]
T2  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36383462; 13424-080186_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080186/080186_0010.txt
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Airports
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Housing
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Navigation Aids
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Safety
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Nellis Air Force Base
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383462?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 10]
T2  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36380348; 13424-080186_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Airports
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Housing
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Navigation Aids
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Safety
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Nellis Air Force Base
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380348?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 10]
T2  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36378268; 13424-080186_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Airports
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Housing
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Navigation Aids
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Safety
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Nellis Air Force Base
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378268?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 10]
T2  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36378209; 13424-080186_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Airports
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Housing
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Navigation Aids
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Safety
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Nellis Air Force Base
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378209?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REPLACEMENT GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT, CITY OF MESQUITE, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 16372329; 13424
AB  - PURPOSE: The relocation of the Mesquite Municipal Airport MMA, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The relocation of the airport was identified as appropriate in the 2004 Airport Layout Plan. The existing 168-acre airport, which was constructed in 1993 to provide general aviation (GA) services to the rapidly growing Nevada/Arizona/Utah border area, provides GA services to the city of Mesquite as well as the unincorporated towns of Bunkerville and Riverside, Nevada and to the nearby communities of Beaver Dam, Scenic, Littlefield, and Desert View in Arizona. In 2006, the airport accommodated 16,126 GA single-engine and light multi-engine aircraft operations and provided a home base to 30 GA aircraft. With the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activity in the city and surrounding communities, the demand for aviation services s anticipated to increase significantly in the near future and the long-term. The runway at MMA is 5,100 feet long and 75 feet wide, oriented in a north-northeast/south-southwest direction and designated Runway 01/19. The airport suffers from limited on-site development areas and inadequate runway takeoff lengths. The new airport would be located on Mormon Mesa, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Mesquite. The proposed plan would result in the acquisition of 2,560 acres of land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to accommodate the proposed airport, construction of an airport access road, provision of runway protection zones, construction or a new Runway 3/21 (7,500 feet by 100 feet), construction of a full length parallel taxiway and taxiway connectors, aircraft parking apron, navigational aids, and other associated aviation support facilities (i.e., fuel farm, aircraft rescue and fire fighting facility, and air traffic control tower.) Concurrent with the development of the replacement airport, the city would decommission the existing aviation facilities and release the existing air[port site for residential development In addition to the proposed airport relocation, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the new airport would enable the city to accommodate existing and future passenger enplanements and aircraft operations safely and efficiently through 2014. The airport would provide GA facilities and services to the flying public, support regional economic development, and provide continued access to the national air transportation system. The new site would provide sufficient land area to develop and protect functional on-site land uses and facilities. The facility would accommodate existing and projected aviation demand without operational or safety restrictions and provide a change of lane use at the existing airport to a more appropriate use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Airport development would displace natural and undeveloped land, including 105 acres of American warm desert wash and 179 acres of Sonora-Mohave creosote-bush-white bursage desert scrub. Habitat for the federally protected desert tortoise would be affected. Approximately 7.44 acres of floodplain would be displaced. Airport operations would conflict with local desert land uses, particularly recreational uses, by detracting from the visual and aural aesthetics of the area, particularly the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. A segment of the Arrowhead Trail Highway would life within the development footprint of the facility, though this segment is ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 0.4 acre of U.S. jurisdictional waters would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), 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.), Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, as amended (P.L. 106-113), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080186, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Appendices A through D--699 pages and maps, Appendices E through I--768 pages and maps, May 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Airports
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Housing
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Navigation Aids
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Safety
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Nellis Air Force Base
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mesquite Lands Act of 1999, Project Authorization
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16372329?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=REPLACEMENT+GENERAL+AVIATION+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+OF+MESQUITE%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Burlingame, California; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska; final supplemental integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement
AN  - 50853810; 2008-100020
JF  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska; final supplemental integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement
Y1  - 2008/05//
PY  - 2008
DA  - May 2008
VL  - BLM/AK/PL-08/016+1610+930
KW  - United States
KW  - petroleum exploration
KW  - impact statements
KW  - petroleum
KW  - environmental management
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - conservation
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - land management
KW  - report
KW  - CD-ROM
KW  - Alaska
KW  - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50853810?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve%2C+Alaska%3B+final+supplemental+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement&rft.title=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve%2C+Alaska%3B+final+supplemental+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2008-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK, United States
N1  - SuppNotes - CD-ROM contains 6 volumes; bound volumes are cited seperately
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; final supplemental integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; Volume 1, Abstract, Executive summary, Chapters 1-3
AN  - 50852968; 2008-100026
JF  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; final supplemental integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; Volume 1, Abstract, Executive summary, Chapters 1-3
Y1  - 2008/05//
PY  - 2008
DA  - May 2008
VL  - BLM/AK/PL-08/016+1610+930
KW  - United States
KW  - petroleum exploration
KW  - human activity
KW  - regional planning
KW  - impact statements
KW  - petroleum
KW  - areal geology
KW  - environmental management
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - conservation
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - land management
KW  - report
KW  - Alaska
KW  - land use
KW  - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50852968?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%3B+final+supplemental+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+Volume+1%2C+Abstract%2C+Executive+summary%2C+Chapters+1-3&rft.title=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%3B+final+supplemental+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+Volume+1%2C+Abstract%2C+Executive+summary%2C+Chapters+1-3&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2008-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. tables
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; final supplemental integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; Volume 3, Chapter 4, Sections 4.7-4.12
AN  - 50852905; 2008-100024
JF  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; final supplemental integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; Volume 3, Chapter 4, Sections 4.7-4.12
Y1  - 2008/05//
PY  - 2008
DA  - May 2008
VL  - BLM/AK/PL-08/016+1610+930
KW  - United States
KW  - petroleum exploration
KW  - human activity
KW  - regional planning
KW  - impact statements
KW  - petroleum
KW  - areal geology
KW  - environmental management
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - conservation
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - land management
KW  - report
KW  - Alaska
KW  - land use
KW  - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50852905?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%3B+final+supplemental+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+Volume+3%2C+Chapter+4%2C+Sections+4.7-4.12&rft.title=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%3B+final+supplemental+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+Volume+3%2C+Chapter+4%2C+Sections+4.7-4.12&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2008-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. tables
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; final supplemental integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; Volume 4, Chapters 5 and 6
AN  - 50852610; 2008-100025
JF  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; final supplemental integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; Volume 4, Chapters 5 and 6
Y1  - 2008/05//
PY  - 2008
DA  - May 2008
VL  - BLM/AK/PL-08/016+1610+930
KW  - United States
KW  - petroleum exploration
KW  - human activity
KW  - regional planning
KW  - impact statements
KW  - petroleum
KW  - areal geology
KW  - environmental management
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - conservation
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - land management
KW  - report
KW  - Alaska
KW  - land use
KW  - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50852610?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%3B+final+supplemental+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+Volume+4%2C+Chapters+5+and+6&rft.title=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%3B+final+supplemental+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+Volume+4%2C+Chapters+5+and+6&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2008-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. tables
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; final supplemental integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; Volume 5, Appendices, bibliography, glossary, acronyms
AN  - 50851605; 2008-100023
JF  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; final supplemental integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; Volume 5, Appendices, bibliography, glossary, acronyms
Y1  - 2008/05//
PY  - 2008
DA  - May 2008
VL  - BLM/AK/PL-08/016+1610+930
KW  - United States
KW  - petroleum exploration
KW  - nomenclature
KW  - human activity
KW  - regional planning
KW  - impact statements
KW  - petroleum
KW  - areal geology
KW  - bibliography
KW  - environmental management
KW  - glossaries
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - conservation
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - land management
KW  - report
KW  - Alaska
KW  - land use
KW  - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50851605?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%3B+final+supplemental+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+Volume+5%2C+Appendices%2C+bibliography%2C+glossary%2C+acronyms&rft.title=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%3B+final+supplemental+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+Volume+5%2C+Appendices%2C+bibliography%2C+glossary%2C+acronyms&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2008-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. tables
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; final supplemental integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; Volume 2, Chapter 4, Sections 4.1-4.6
AN  - 50848716; 2008-100022
JF  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; final supplemental integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; Volume 2, Chapter 4, Sections 4.1-4.6
Y1  - 2008/05//
PY  - 2008
DA  - May 2008
VL  - BLM/AK/PL-08/016+1610+930
KW  - United States
KW  - petroleum exploration
KW  - human activity
KW  - regional planning
KW  - impact statements
KW  - petroleum
KW  - areal geology
KW  - environmental management
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - conservation
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - land management
KW  - report
KW  - Alaska
KW  - land use
KW  - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50848716?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%3B+final+supplemental+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+Volume+2%2C+Chapter+4%2C+Sections+4.1-4.6&rft.title=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%3B+final+supplemental+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+Volume+2%2C+Chapter+4%2C+Sections+4.1-4.6&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2008-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. tables
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; final supplemental integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; Volume 6, Maps
AN  - 50848690; 2008-100021
JF  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; final supplemental integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; Volume 6, Maps
Y1  - 2008/05//
PY  - 2008
DA  - May 2008
VL  - BLM/AK/PL-08/016+1610+930
KW  - Scale: 1:1,200,000
KW  - Scale: 1:1.200,000
KW  - Type: colored soils maps
KW  - Type: colored land use maps
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - petroleum exploration
KW  - human activity
KW  - regional planning
KW  - land use maps
KW  - impact statements
KW  - petroleum
KW  - areal geology
KW  - biota
KW  - environmental management
KW  - oil and gas maps
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - maps
KW  - conservation
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - land management
KW  - report
KW  - economic geology maps
KW  - ecology
KW  - Alaska
KW  - soils maps
KW  - land use
KW  - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50848690?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%3B+final+supplemental+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+Volume+6%2C+Maps&rft.title=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%3B+final+supplemental+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+Volume+6%2C+Maps&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2008-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. tables
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHERN INTEGRATED SUPPLY PROJECT, NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO.
AN  - 36409395; 13405
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a water storage and supply system, to be known as the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP), in Larimer and Weld counties, Colorado are proposed. As proposed by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, the main component of the NISP would consist of a reservoir (Glade Reservoir) with a capacity of 170,00 acre-feet (AF), an associated forebay, pumping station, and diversion structure and canal upgrade to convey water diverted from the Cache la Poudre River to the reservoir. A pipeline connecting the Glade Reservoir to the existing Horsetooth Reservoir would be provided. The NISP would also include the construction and operation of a 40,000-AF reservoir (Galeton Reservoir), an associated forebay, pumping station, and pipeline to deliver water diverted from the South Platte River to Galeton Reservoir. Water exchanges between the Galeton and Glade reservoir diversion locations would be arranged. The project would be a collaborative effort of 12 water providers, facilitated and coordinated by the Conservancy District, to provide 40,000 AF of new reliable water supply to meet a portion of the water providers' estimated supply needs through 2050. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 is the foregoing proposal. Alternative 3 would provide for a 180,000-AF impoundment (Cactus Hill Reservoir) and a 40,000-AF impoundment (Galeton Reservoir. Alternative 4 would provide either the Glade Reservoir or the Cactus Hill Reservoir as well as the Galeton Reservoir at 20,000 AF and 12,000 AF of agricultural transfers. Two alternative alignments are evaluated with respect to the relocation of US 287; a seven-mile section of the existing highway would be inundated by the Glade Reservoir. Cost of alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are estimated at $426 million, $452.2 million, and $570 million to $496 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would allow the 12 participating water suppliers to avoid shortfalls with respect to their water municipal and industrial supply commitments through 2050. Without the NISP, all 12 participants would experience greater shortfalls through each of the next 50 years. the new reservoirs and associated delivery infrastructure would also prevent the conversion of 69,200 acres of currently productive irrigated farmland to dry land uses. The Glade Reservoir would provide for public recreation valued at $17.1 million per year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the new reservoir would inundate 44 acres of wetlands, 2,705 to 2,807 acres of plant communities, and 50 acres of habitat for the federally protected Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Regardless of the action alternative selected, the project would reduce streamflows in the Cache la Poudre River and South Platte River. Flows in the Cache la Poudre River would be diverted with the Conservancy District's Grey Mountain water right, currently not a responsibility of the District, became a priority; the greatest changes in flow would occur during the late spring and early summer, affecting flows along 55 miles of the river form the Pourdre Valley Canal to the confluence of the South Platte River. All action alternatives would also divert water from the Cache la Poudre River to the Poudre Valley Canal; the water would be diverted from the section of the river extending 23 miles from the canal downstream to approximately two miles south of Timnath. Public recreation at the Glade Reservoir would seasonally increase traffic in the vicinity. One alternative considered for the relocation of US 287 would require a rock cut through the Morrison Formation, a known fossiliferous formation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575).
JF  - EPA number: 080167, 878 pages and maps, April 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Highways
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36409395?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+INTEGRATED+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+NORTHERN+COLORADO+WATER+CONSERVANCY+DISTRICT%2C+LARIMER+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTHERN+INTEGRATED+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+NORTHERN+COLORADO+WATER+CONSERVANCY+DISTRICT%2C+LARIMER+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON.
AN  - 36415730; 13399
AB  - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. I-5 is one of two major north-south highways providing interstate connectivity and mobility. The study area extends five miles along the I-5 corridor from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. This section of the interstate includes six interchanges that connect the facility to three state highways, providing interstate connectivity and mobility. The current bridge crossing has become congested do to growing traffic demand, impeding passenger and freight movement. The structure provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion. The existing crossing is a draw bridge, hampering both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. These conditions and poor highway geometrics have contributed to the excessive number of accidents reported for the study corridor (300 annually). The area underlying the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake as neither bridge was built to current seismic standards. This draft EIS considers four multi-modal build alternatives that propose either replacing or rehabilitating the existing bridges, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, and improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These alternatives also incorporate the possibility of tolling and implementing transportation system management and demand measures. The multimodal components of the alternatives represent various combinations of bridges carrying transit, highway, and bicycle and pedestrian traffic; bicycle and pedestrian improvements between north Portland and downtown Vancouver; and highway and interchange improvements between north Portland and downtown Vancouver. In addition, the alternatives offer various means of implementing high-capacity transit modes, transit terminus and alignment options, transit operations options regarding the frequency or train or bus rapid transit service, bridge tolls, and system and demand management options. In addition to the alternatives described above, this EIS considers a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1). POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to vastly improving the automobile between the two cities as well as transit, pedestrian, and bicycle options, the bridge improvement project would enhance movements of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail structurally during an earthquake. Highly significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion, better access to nonvehicular means of crossing the river, and the presence of rapid transit options. Estimated costs of the build alternatives range from $3.1 billion to $4.1 billion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in numerous commercial and residential displacements. Transportation developments within the study corridor would also impact wetlands. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places would be affected. Runoff from impervious surfaces created by the project would increase substantially and the overall amount of toxic pollutants contained in the runoff would increase as well. Numerous sensitive receptors would be exposed automobile and transit traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080165, Draft EIS--812 pages and maps, Appendices--101 pages, CD-ROM, April 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Relocation Plans
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Columbia River
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36415730?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 3 of 4]
T2  - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON.
AN  - 36389590; 13399-080165_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. I-5 is one of two major north-south highways providing interstate connectivity and mobility. The study area extends five miles along the I-5 corridor from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. This section of the interstate includes six interchanges that connect the facility to three state highways, providing interstate connectivity and mobility. The current bridge crossing has become congested do to growing traffic demand, impeding passenger and freight movement. The structure provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion. The existing crossing is a draw bridge, hampering both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. These conditions and poor highway geometrics have contributed to the excessive number of accidents reported for the study corridor (300 annually). The area underlying the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake as neither bridge was built to current seismic standards. This draft EIS considers four multi-modal build alternatives that propose either replacing or rehabilitating the existing bridges, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, and improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These alternatives also incorporate the possibility of tolling and implementing transportation system management and demand measures. The multimodal components of the alternatives represent various combinations of bridges carrying transit, highway, and bicycle and pedestrian traffic; bicycle and pedestrian improvements between north Portland and downtown Vancouver; and highway and interchange improvements between north Portland and downtown Vancouver. In addition, the alternatives offer various means of implementing high-capacity transit modes, transit terminus and alignment options, transit operations options regarding the frequency or train or bus rapid transit service, bridge tolls, and system and demand management options. In addition to the alternatives described above, this EIS considers a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1). POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to vastly improving the automobile between the two cities as well as transit, pedestrian, and bicycle options, the bridge improvement project would enhance movements of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail structurally during an earthquake. Highly significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion, better access to nonvehicular means of crossing the river, and the presence of rapid transit options. Estimated costs of the build alternatives range from $3.1 billion to $4.1 billion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in numerous commercial and residential displacements. Transportation developments within the study corridor would also impact wetlands. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places would be affected. Runoff from impervious surfaces created by the project would increase substantially and the overall amount of toxic pollutants contained in the runoff would increase as well. Numerous sensitive receptors would be exposed automobile and transit traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080165, Draft EIS--812 pages and maps, Appendices--101 pages, CD-ROM, April 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Relocation Plans
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Columbia River
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389590?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 4 of 4]
T2  - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON.
AN  - 36380427; 13399-080165_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. I-5 is one of two major north-south highways providing interstate connectivity and mobility. The study area extends five miles along the I-5 corridor from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. This section of the interstate includes six interchanges that connect the facility to three state highways, providing interstate connectivity and mobility. The current bridge crossing has become congested do to growing traffic demand, impeding passenger and freight movement. The structure provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion. The existing crossing is a draw bridge, hampering both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. These conditions and poor highway geometrics have contributed to the excessive number of accidents reported for the study corridor (300 annually). The area underlying the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake as neither bridge was built to current seismic standards. This draft EIS considers four multi-modal build alternatives that propose either replacing or rehabilitating the existing bridges, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, and improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These alternatives also incorporate the possibility of tolling and implementing transportation system management and demand measures. The multimodal components of the alternatives represent various combinations of bridges carrying transit, highway, and bicycle and pedestrian traffic; bicycle and pedestrian improvements between north Portland and downtown Vancouver; and highway and interchange improvements between north Portland and downtown Vancouver. In addition, the alternatives offer various means of implementing high-capacity transit modes, transit terminus and alignment options, transit operations options regarding the frequency or train or bus rapid transit service, bridge tolls, and system and demand management options. In addition to the alternatives described above, this EIS considers a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1). POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to vastly improving the automobile between the two cities as well as transit, pedestrian, and bicycle options, the bridge improvement project would enhance movements of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail structurally during an earthquake. Highly significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion, better access to nonvehicular means of crossing the river, and the presence of rapid transit options. Estimated costs of the build alternatives range from $3.1 billion to $4.1 billion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in numerous commercial and residential displacements. Transportation developments within the study corridor would also impact wetlands. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places would be affected. Runoff from impervious surfaces created by the project would increase substantially and the overall amount of toxic pollutants contained in the runoff would increase as well. Numerous sensitive receptors would be exposed automobile and transit traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080165, Draft EIS--812 pages and maps, Appendices--101 pages, CD-ROM, April 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Relocation Plans
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Columbia River
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380427?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 2 of 4]
T2  - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON.
AN  - 36378592; 13399-080165_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. I-5 is one of two major north-south highways providing interstate connectivity and mobility. The study area extends five miles along the I-5 corridor from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. This section of the interstate includes six interchanges that connect the facility to three state highways, providing interstate connectivity and mobility. The current bridge crossing has become congested do to growing traffic demand, impeding passenger and freight movement. The structure provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion. The existing crossing is a draw bridge, hampering both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. These conditions and poor highway geometrics have contributed to the excessive number of accidents reported for the study corridor (300 annually). The area underlying the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake as neither bridge was built to current seismic standards. This draft EIS considers four multi-modal build alternatives that propose either replacing or rehabilitating the existing bridges, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, and improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These alternatives also incorporate the possibility of tolling and implementing transportation system management and demand measures. The multimodal components of the alternatives represent various combinations of bridges carrying transit, highway, and bicycle and pedestrian traffic; bicycle and pedestrian improvements between north Portland and downtown Vancouver; and highway and interchange improvements between north Portland and downtown Vancouver. In addition, the alternatives offer various means of implementing high-capacity transit modes, transit terminus and alignment options, transit operations options regarding the frequency or train or bus rapid transit service, bridge tolls, and system and demand management options. In addition to the alternatives described above, this EIS considers a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1). POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to vastly improving the automobile between the two cities as well as transit, pedestrian, and bicycle options, the bridge improvement project would enhance movements of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail structurally during an earthquake. Highly significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion, better access to nonvehicular means of crossing the river, and the presence of rapid transit options. Estimated costs of the build alternatives range from $3.1 billion to $4.1 billion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in numerous commercial and residential displacements. Transportation developments within the study corridor would also impact wetlands. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places would be affected. Runoff from impervious surfaces created by the project would increase substantially and the overall amount of toxic pollutants contained in the runoff would increase as well. Numerous sensitive receptors would be exposed automobile and transit traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080165, Draft EIS--812 pages and maps, Appendices--101 pages, CD-ROM, April 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Relocation Plans
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Columbia River
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378592?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON. [Part 1 of 4]
T2  - INTERSTATE 5, COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECT, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND PORTLAND, OREGON.
AN  - 36378535; 13399-080165_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: Replacement or rehabilitation of the Interstate 5 (I-5) bridges across the Columbia River connecting Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed. I-5 is the only interstate corridor on the West Coast connecting Canada to Mexico and one of the only two highways crossing the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. I-5 is one of two major north-south highways providing interstate connectivity and mobility. The study area extends five miles along the I-5 corridor from State Route 500 in Vancouver to a point just short of Columbia Boulevard in Portland. This section of the interstate includes six interchanges that connect the facility to three state highways, providing interstate connectivity and mobility. The current bridge crossing has become congested do to growing traffic demand, impeding passenger and freight movement. The structure provides for only limited public transportation operation, connectivity, and reliability. Close interchange spacing contributes to congestion. The existing crossing is a draw bridge, hampering both river navigation and vehicular traffic flow. These conditions and poor highway geometrics have contributed to the excessive number of accidents reported for the study corridor (300 annually). The area underlying the bridges is subject to extreme seismic activity and the foundations of both bridges, one built in 1917 and the other in 1958, could liquefy during a major earthquake as neither bridge was built to current seismic standards. This draft EIS considers four multi-modal build alternatives that propose either replacing or rehabilitating the existing bridges, provide highway improvements, either extend light rail or provide rapid transit along one of several transit alignment and length options, and improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These alternatives also incorporate the possibility of tolling and implementing transportation system management and demand measures. The multimodal components of the alternatives represent various combinations of bridges carrying transit, highway, and bicycle and pedestrian traffic; bicycle and pedestrian improvements between north Portland and downtown Vancouver; and highway and interchange improvements between north Portland and downtown Vancouver. In addition, the alternatives offer various means of implementing high-capacity transit modes, transit terminus and alignment options, transit operations options regarding the frequency or train or bus rapid transit service, bridge tolls, and system and demand management options. In addition to the alternatives described above, this EIS considers a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1). POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to vastly improving the automobile between the two cities as well as transit, pedestrian, and bicycle options, the bridge improvement project would enhance movements of goods and persons from western Canada to all points south. The crossing would no longer constitute a vehicular safety problem, nor would it be as likely as the existing structure to fail structurally during an earthquake. Highly significant reductions in air pollutant emissions would be achieved due to less vehicular congestion, better access to nonvehicular means of crossing the river, and the presence of rapid transit options. Estimated costs of the build alternatives range from $3.1 billion to $4.1 billion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in numerous commercial and residential displacements. Transportation developments within the study corridor would also impact wetlands. Up to three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places would be affected. Runoff from impervious surfaces created by the project would increase substantially and the overall amount of toxic pollutants contained in the runoff would increase as well. Numerous sensitive receptors would be exposed automobile and transit traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards. Regardless of the engineering improvements achieved by the project, serious seismic events could result in significant damage to the bridges. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080165, Draft EIS--812 pages and maps, Appendices--101 pages, CD-ROM, April 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Relocation Plans
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Columbia River
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378535?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+5%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+CROSSING+PROJECT%2C+VANCOUVER%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+PORTLAND%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SAGE STEPPE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STRATEGY, MODOC NATIONAL FOREST, MODOC, LASSEN, SHASTA, AND SISKIYOU COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA AND WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - SAGE STEPPE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STRATEGY, MODOC NATIONAL FOREST, MODOC, LASSEN, SHASTA, AND SISKIYOU COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA AND WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36394986; 13413-080175_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a sage steppe ecosystem restoration strategy within 6.5 million acres or public and private lands within the Modoc National Forest and associated areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Modoc, Lassen, Shasta, and Siskiyou counties California and Washoe County, Nevada is proposed. The strategy focuses on the restoration of safe steppe ecosystems that have come to be dominated by juniper as the density of Western juniper has increased over the landscape. The juniper encroachment is largely due to anthropogenic changes, which have resulted in loss of vegetative, habitat, and hydrologic values. The management strategy would broadly identify appropriate restoration methodologies by ecological conditions, provide guidelines for the design and implementation of effective restoration treatments for restoration opportunity areas to be analyzed on a site-by-site basis over a 50-year horizon. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to sage steppe restoration rate, permanent road construction, the uncertainty of the results of treatments proposed, livestock grazing impacts on restoration effectiveness, impacts of restoration on the sustainability of livestock grazing, noxious weeds and non-native invasive species, old-growth juniper retention, loss of juniper wildlife habitat, short-term impacts to sage obligate species, soil productivity and surface hydrology conditions, cultural resources and native American activities, and the practicality of the use of prescribed fire. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), the U.S. Forest Service and BLM would adopt a long-range monitoring and adjustment strategy to restore the stage steppe ecosystem and related species habitat. The integrated, landscape-scale management strategy designed to restore the sage steppe ecosystem across that analysis area would focus on the conditions of the ecosystem that are targeted for restoration. Primary methods to be employed for restoration would include prescribed fire, mechanical restoration, and hand restoration. Using this integrated approach, federal land managers would treat up to 30,000 acres per year across the study area. The strategy would represent a programmatic, landscape-scale approach to restoration. Treatments would require site-specific environmental analysis to meet the objectives of the strategy. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed strategy would restore large sage steppe ecosystems and associated vegetative communities to desired habitat conditions reflecting ecological processes that existed prior to European settlement of the affected areas. The strategy would restore sage steppe ecosystem processes and vegetation that resemble historic mosaics, so that historic fire return intervals in the ecosystems can be sustained. Ecosystem restoration would improve watershed function and condition, restore biodiversity and biological productivity, manage fuels to conform to National Fire Plan requirements, and implement national renewable energy direction. Forage for wildlife and livestock would be significantly enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in a short-term reduction in the availability of forage for domestic livestock, though forage would be increased in the long-term. Mechanical treatments on 23,825 acres and prescribed fire treatment on 135,518 acres would result in short-term degradation of visual aesthetics in affected areas. During treatment periods, some semi-primitive motorized recreation areas would be converted to roaded natural recreation areas, degrading the recreational experience for primitive recreationists. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0356D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080175, 613 pages, April 24, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Modoc National Forest
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36394986?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAGE+STEPPE+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STRATEGY%2C+MODOC+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+MODOC%2C+LASSEN%2C+SHASTA%2C+AND+SISKIYOU+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+WASHOE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SAGE+STEPPE+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STRATEGY%2C+MODOC+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+MODOC%2C+LASSEN%2C+SHASTA%2C+AND+SISKIYOU+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+WASHOE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alturas, California; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 24, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SAGE STEPPE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STRATEGY, MODOC NATIONAL FOREST, MODOC, LASSEN, SHASTA, AND SISKIYOU COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA AND WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - SAGE STEPPE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STRATEGY, MODOC NATIONAL FOREST, MODOC, LASSEN, SHASTA, AND SISKIYOU COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA AND WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36388375; 13413-080175_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a sage steppe ecosystem restoration strategy within 6.5 million acres or public and private lands within the Modoc National Forest and associated areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Modoc, Lassen, Shasta, and Siskiyou counties California and Washoe County, Nevada is proposed. The strategy focuses on the restoration of safe steppe ecosystems that have come to be dominated by juniper as the density of Western juniper has increased over the landscape. The juniper encroachment is largely due to anthropogenic changes, which have resulted in loss of vegetative, habitat, and hydrologic values. The management strategy would broadly identify appropriate restoration methodologies by ecological conditions, provide guidelines for the design and implementation of effective restoration treatments for restoration opportunity areas to be analyzed on a site-by-site basis over a 50-year horizon. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to sage steppe restoration rate, permanent road construction, the uncertainty of the results of treatments proposed, livestock grazing impacts on restoration effectiveness, impacts of restoration on the sustainability of livestock grazing, noxious weeds and non-native invasive species, old-growth juniper retention, loss of juniper wildlife habitat, short-term impacts to sage obligate species, soil productivity and surface hydrology conditions, cultural resources and native American activities, and the practicality of the use of prescribed fire. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), the U.S. Forest Service and BLM would adopt a long-range monitoring and adjustment strategy to restore the stage steppe ecosystem and related species habitat. The integrated, landscape-scale management strategy designed to restore the sage steppe ecosystem across that analysis area would focus on the conditions of the ecosystem that are targeted for restoration. Primary methods to be employed for restoration would include prescribed fire, mechanical restoration, and hand restoration. Using this integrated approach, federal land managers would treat up to 30,000 acres per year across the study area. The strategy would represent a programmatic, landscape-scale approach to restoration. Treatments would require site-specific environmental analysis to meet the objectives of the strategy. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed strategy would restore large sage steppe ecosystems and associated vegetative communities to desired habitat conditions reflecting ecological processes that existed prior to European settlement of the affected areas. The strategy would restore sage steppe ecosystem processes and vegetation that resemble historic mosaics, so that historic fire return intervals in the ecosystems can be sustained. Ecosystem restoration would improve watershed function and condition, restore biodiversity and biological productivity, manage fuels to conform to National Fire Plan requirements, and implement national renewable energy direction. Forage for wildlife and livestock would be significantly enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in a short-term reduction in the availability of forage for domestic livestock, though forage would be increased in the long-term. Mechanical treatments on 23,825 acres and prescribed fire treatment on 135,518 acres would result in short-term degradation of visual aesthetics in affected areas. During treatment periods, some semi-primitive motorized recreation areas would be converted to roaded natural recreation areas, degrading the recreational experience for primitive recreationists. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0356D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080175, 613 pages, April 24, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Modoc National Forest
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388375?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAGE+STEPPE+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STRATEGY%2C+MODOC+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+MODOC%2C+LASSEN%2C+SHASTA%2C+AND+SISKIYOU+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+WASHOE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SAGE+STEPPE+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STRATEGY%2C+MODOC+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+MODOC%2C+LASSEN%2C+SHASTA%2C+AND+SISKIYOU+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+WASHOE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alturas, California; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 24, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EFFECT OF THE QUARRY VISITOR CENTER TREATMENT PROJECT, DINOSAUR NATIONAL MONUMENT, UTAH AND COLORADO. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - EFFECT OF THE QUARRY VISITOR CENTER TREATMENT PROJECT, DINOSAUR NATIONAL MONUMENT, UTAH AND COLORADO.
AN  - 36384197; 13395-080161_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The correction of structural shortcomings associated with the Quarry Visitor Center of the Dinosaur National Monument of Colorado and Utah is proposed. Dinosaur National Monument was created on October 4, 1915 to preserve the outstanding fossil resources located in a dinosaur quarry discovered in the early 1900s by Earl Douglass of the Carnegie Museum. In 1957 and 1958, the Quarry Visitor Center was constructed directly over the fossil bone deposit for the express purpose of protecting and showcasing the primary feature of the monument, the dinosaur fossils exposed in the rock face. The visitor center is an outstanding example of Mission 66 era visitor centers that embody an architectural style described as "Park Service Modern." Due to its distinctive design and its structural relationship to the monument resource, the visitor center was designated a National Historic Landmark on January 3, 2001. The visitor center has four interconnecting structural elements that make up the building's character, specifically, the serpentine entry ramp, the exhibit hall, the administrative wing, and the south wing. The center has experienced problems with foundation movements since its construction. The building is subjected to extensive strain caused by differential movements of underlying expansive clay strata, causing substantial damage to the building. On July 12, 2006, the National Park Service found it necessary to close the Quarry Visitor Center due to structural instability. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts to cultural resources, geologic and paleontological resources, visitor use and experience, socioeconomics, public health and safety, and park management and operations. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would mount a project to rehabilitate or replace the exhibit hall and construct a new facility offsite. Alternative C would retain the exhibit hall and construct a new facility at the Quarry Visitor Center Site. Alternative D would retain the exhibit hall and construct wings similar to the existing facility. Alternative E would demolish the entire facility and replace it with a new facility at the Quarry Visitor Center site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of the visitor site facility would allow the center to meet current applicable building codes, including those addressing access, egress, and accessibility, eliminating the safety and health issues that plague the existing structure. The new facilities would protect the paleontological resources on the quarry face and geological resources surrounding the quarry, provide an environment where employees can work efficiently and safely, and provide visitor orientation about Dinosaur National Monument and means to enjoy their visit. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation measures would result in the alteration of an historically significant site. The fossil wall could suffer damage during construction activities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0244D, Volume 31, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080161, 240 pages, April 24, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-14
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Museums
KW  - Quarries
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Dinosaur National Monument
KW  - Utah
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384197?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EFFECT+OF+THE+QUARRY+VISITOR+CENTER+TREATMENT+PROJECT%2C+DINOSAUR+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+UTAH+AND+COLORADO.&rft.title=EFFECT+OF+THE+QUARRY+VISITOR+CENTER+TREATMENT+PROJECT%2C+DINOSAUR+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+UTAH+AND+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Dinosaur, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 24, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SAGE STEPPE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STRATEGY, MODOC NATIONAL FOREST, MODOC, LASSEN, SHASTA, AND SISKIYOU COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA AND WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - SAGE STEPPE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STRATEGY, MODOC NATIONAL FOREST, MODOC, LASSEN, SHASTA, AND SISKIYOU COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA AND WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36381238; 13413-080175_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a sage steppe ecosystem restoration strategy within 6.5 million acres or public and private lands within the Modoc National Forest and associated areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Modoc, Lassen, Shasta, and Siskiyou counties California and Washoe County, Nevada is proposed. The strategy focuses on the restoration of safe steppe ecosystems that have come to be dominated by juniper as the density of Western juniper has increased over the landscape. The juniper encroachment is largely due to anthropogenic changes, which have resulted in loss of vegetative, habitat, and hydrologic values. The management strategy would broadly identify appropriate restoration methodologies by ecological conditions, provide guidelines for the design and implementation of effective restoration treatments for restoration opportunity areas to be analyzed on a site-by-site basis over a 50-year horizon. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to sage steppe restoration rate, permanent road construction, the uncertainty of the results of treatments proposed, livestock grazing impacts on restoration effectiveness, impacts of restoration on the sustainability of livestock grazing, noxious weeds and non-native invasive species, old-growth juniper retention, loss of juniper wildlife habitat, short-term impacts to sage obligate species, soil productivity and surface hydrology conditions, cultural resources and native American activities, and the practicality of the use of prescribed fire. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), the U.S. Forest Service and BLM would adopt a long-range monitoring and adjustment strategy to restore the stage steppe ecosystem and related species habitat. The integrated, landscape-scale management strategy designed to restore the sage steppe ecosystem across that analysis area would focus on the conditions of the ecosystem that are targeted for restoration. Primary methods to be employed for restoration would include prescribed fire, mechanical restoration, and hand restoration. Using this integrated approach, federal land managers would treat up to 30,000 acres per year across the study area. The strategy would represent a programmatic, landscape-scale approach to restoration. Treatments would require site-specific environmental analysis to meet the objectives of the strategy. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed strategy would restore large sage steppe ecosystems and associated vegetative communities to desired habitat conditions reflecting ecological processes that existed prior to European settlement of the affected areas. The strategy would restore sage steppe ecosystem processes and vegetation that resemble historic mosaics, so that historic fire return intervals in the ecosystems can be sustained. Ecosystem restoration would improve watershed function and condition, restore biodiversity and biological productivity, manage fuels to conform to National Fire Plan requirements, and implement national renewable energy direction. Forage for wildlife and livestock would be significantly enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in a short-term reduction in the availability of forage for domestic livestock, though forage would be increased in the long-term. Mechanical treatments on 23,825 acres and prescribed fire treatment on 135,518 acres would result in short-term degradation of visual aesthetics in affected areas. During treatment periods, some semi-primitive motorized recreation areas would be converted to roaded natural recreation areas, degrading the recreational experience for primitive recreationists. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0356D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080175, 613 pages, April 24, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Modoc National Forest
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381238?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAGE+STEPPE+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STRATEGY%2C+MODOC+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+MODOC%2C+LASSEN%2C+SHASTA%2C+AND+SISKIYOU+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+WASHOE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SAGE+STEPPE+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STRATEGY%2C+MODOC+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+MODOC%2C+LASSEN%2C+SHASTA%2C+AND+SISKIYOU+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+WASHOE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alturas, California; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 24, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ENVIRONMENTAL WATER ACCOUNT, SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN DELTA REGION, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2004). [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - ENVIRONMENTAL WATER ACCOUNT, SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN DELTA REGION, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2004).
AN  - 36388023; 13392-080158_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an environmental water account (EWA) for the Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta Region of California is proposed. The delta region provides water to the majority of California's agriculture and to urban and industrial communities. The delta also provides habitat for numerous plant, animal, and fish species, including several endangered species. This dual role places the region at the center of an ongoing conflict between environmental and water supply interests. Within the delta, pumping plants operated by the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP) move water from the delta to a system of canals and reservoirs for use by agricultural interests, communities, and wildlife refuges in the Central Valley, the Bay Area, and southern California, and along the central coast. Pumping water from the delta alters normal flow patterns and can threaten the recovery of endangered and threatened fish species unless the projection of those species is adopted as an operations parameter. Reduction of delta pumping for protection and recovery of fish habitat can, however, interrupt water supply deliveries, thereby reducing the reliability of California's water supply. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a collaborative effort of 23 federal and state agencies seeking to resolve these conflicts. Rivers affecting water resources associated with the delta include the American, Merced, Feather, Yuba, Sacramento, and San Joaquin rivers. The EWA would consist of two primary elements: the facilitation of fish population recovery through water acquisition and management and the use of the acquired water to replace water deliveries (or supplies) interrupted by changes in the SWP/CVP operations. The final EIS of January 2004 considered three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. The action alternatives would involve the acquisition of EWA assets via stored surface water, stored groundwater, groundwater substitution, and crop idling purchases. EWA asset management would be achieved through source shifting, groundwater storage, and borrowing of project water. The action alternatives would differ primarily in actions taken to protect fish and the quantities of assets acquired. The proposed action would adopt a flexible interpretation of the CALFED directives, incorporating functionally equivalent purchases and actions within the framework of the directives. EWA agencies would adjust purchases of water to respond to differing hydrologic conditions and to take advantage of water acquisition/storage possibilities throughout the CVP and SWP service areas. This draft supplement to the final EIS presents no substantial changes in the nature of the project. However, the original implementation timeframe may be extended by up to four years. Moreover, several years have passed since the final EIS and the existing regulatory and environmental settings differ from those in 2004. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. The proposed action would allow EWA agencies to acquire up to 600,000 acre-feet of water assets to address pump reductions and other fish conservation measures and to compensate the CVP/SWP for water otherwise lost due to such measures. EWA agencies would typically acquire only 200,000 to 300,000 acre-feet annually, except in years with extreme fish conservation needs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The EWA, which is provided for under the CALFED Programmatic EIS/Environmental Impact Report Record of Decision, would assist in fish population recovery for at-risk native fish species and increase water supply reliability by reducing uncertainty associated with fish recovery actions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Water withdrawals, storage, and releases would affect surface water supply and management regimes, water quality, groundwater levels and groundwater quality, wind-born soil losses, air quality due to pump operations, fisheries and aquatic ecosystems, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, regional agricultural economics, agricultural land use, agricultural social values, recreational resources, flood control capacities, hydropower production, cultural resource sites, visual aesthetics, groundwater that constitutes Indian Trust Assets. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0505D, Volume 31, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 4-0110D, Volume 28, Number 1 and 04-0357F, Volume 28, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080158, 314 pages, CD-ROM, April 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Canals
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Yuba River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388023?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENVIRONMENTAL+WATER+ACCOUNT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+REGION%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2004%29.&rft.title=ENVIRONMENTAL+WATER+ACCOUNT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+REGION%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER DUCHESNE RIVER WETLANDS MITIGATION PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36412863; 13374
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to mitigate impacts of the Strawberry Aqueduct and Collection System (SACS) on portions of the Strawberry Reservoir and the Duchesne River downstream of the Starvation Reservoir in Duchesne and Uintah counties, Utah is proposed. THE SACS is a sophisticated aqueduct system that gathers water from the upper Duchesne River and various tributaries for transport to Strawberry Reservoir for storage and eventual use on the Wasatch Front. Flows diverted from the Duchesne River resulted in the loss of wetlands, riparian habitat, and wetland-associated wildlife along the river between Duchesne and Ouray. As a result, the Ute Indian Tribe lost certain benefits associated with the wetlands. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential economic impacts, acquisition of private land by the federal government, mosquito and weed control, wildlife benefits, and recognition of the SACS impacts on wetlands, with strong support for immediate completion of the mitigation obligation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All three action alternatives are composed of a combination of fee lands to be acquired by the federal government and Tribal Trust lands to be placed under a conservation easement. All lands within the project area would be managed by the Tribe in accordance with plans specified in the project operating agreement and management plans to be negotiated. All three alternatives would use a variety of restoration measures, including rewatering oxbows, connecting oxbows to form contiguous systems, enlarging oxbows, enhancing water quality in oxbows, filling drainage ditches to create large marsh complexes, replanting riparian areas with native trees and shrubs, removing non-native invasive species, and changing management of areas adjacent to wetlands to benefit wildlife. The proposed action would combine the mitigation obligations for the SACS with the Duchesne River Area Canal Rehabilitation Project (DRACR), resulting in a project area of 4,807 acres. The Pahcease and Topanotes alternatives would provide mitigation only for the SACS impacts resulting in a project area of 6,765 acres and 6,648 acres, respectively, within the DRACR mitigation implemented separately. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In meeting the Bureau of Reclamation's responsibilities with respect to the Ute Tribe, the land acquisition and land and water management plan would enhance and protect valuable wetland resources and related fish and wildlife habitat. Reconnection of oxbows would restore natural flooding patterns to the riverine system. A number of upland habitat areas would not be converted to wetlands, but their value to wetland and riparian species would be enhanced by changes in management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project activities would result in loss of some upland habitat for three to five years, affecting songbirds and upland raptors. Individual farmers and lessees would have to alter agricultural and livestock practices within the project area due to the restrictions on grazing and the reservation of 20 percent of crop yields for wildlife use. The conversion of fee lands to federal ownership would reduce the county tax base slightly. The plan would result in a net increase in potential mosquito-producing wetland and irrigated pasture habitats. Noise levels would exceed federal standards within 50 feet of project construction sites during project implementation. Cultural resource surveys for the impacted areas have not yet been completed. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992 and Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0236D, Volume 28, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080140, 811 pages and maps, April 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Easements
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Duchesne River
KW  - Utah
KW  - Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36412863?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+DUCHESNE+RIVER+WETLANDS+MITIGATION+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOWER+DUCHESNE+RIVER+WETLANDS+MITIGATION+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER DUCHESNE RIVER WETLANDS MITIGATION PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 6]
T2  - LOWER DUCHESNE RIVER WETLANDS MITIGATION PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36389631; 13374-080140_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to mitigate impacts of the Strawberry Aqueduct and Collection System (SACS) on portions of the Strawberry Reservoir and the Duchesne River downstream of the Starvation Reservoir in Duchesne and Uintah counties, Utah is proposed. THE SACS is a sophisticated aqueduct system that gathers water from the upper Duchesne River and various tributaries for transport to Strawberry Reservoir for storage and eventual use on the Wasatch Front. Flows diverted from the Duchesne River resulted in the loss of wetlands, riparian habitat, and wetland-associated wildlife along the river between Duchesne and Ouray. As a result, the Ute Indian Tribe lost certain benefits associated with the wetlands. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential economic impacts, acquisition of private land by the federal government, mosquito and weed control, wildlife benefits, and recognition of the SACS impacts on wetlands, with strong support for immediate completion of the mitigation obligation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All three action alternatives are composed of a combination of fee lands to be acquired by the federal government and Tribal Trust lands to be placed under a conservation easement. All lands within the project area would be managed by the Tribe in accordance with plans specified in the project operating agreement and management plans to be negotiated. All three alternatives would use a variety of restoration measures, including rewatering oxbows, connecting oxbows to form contiguous systems, enlarging oxbows, enhancing water quality in oxbows, filling drainage ditches to create large marsh complexes, replanting riparian areas with native trees and shrubs, removing non-native invasive species, and changing management of areas adjacent to wetlands to benefit wildlife. The proposed action would combine the mitigation obligations for the SACS with the Duchesne River Area Canal Rehabilitation Project (DRACR), resulting in a project area of 4,807 acres. The Pahcease and Topanotes alternatives would provide mitigation only for the SACS impacts resulting in a project area of 6,765 acres and 6,648 acres, respectively, within the DRACR mitigation implemented separately. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In meeting the Bureau of Reclamation's responsibilities with respect to the Ute Tribe, the land acquisition and land and water management plan would enhance and protect valuable wetland resources and related fish and wildlife habitat. Reconnection of oxbows would restore natural flooding patterns to the riverine system. A number of upland habitat areas would not be converted to wetlands, but their value to wetland and riparian species would be enhanced by changes in management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project activities would result in loss of some upland habitat for three to five years, affecting songbirds and upland raptors. Individual farmers and lessees would have to alter agricultural and livestock practices within the project area due to the restrictions on grazing and the reservation of 20 percent of crop yields for wildlife use. The conversion of fee lands to federal ownership would reduce the county tax base slightly. The plan would result in a net increase in potential mosquito-producing wetland and irrigated pasture habitats. Noise levels would exceed federal standards within 50 feet of project construction sites during project implementation. Cultural resource surveys for the impacted areas have not yet been completed. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992 and Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0236D, Volume 28, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080140, 811 pages and maps, April 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Easements
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Duchesne River
KW  - Utah
KW  - Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389631?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+DUCHESNE+RIVER+WETLANDS+MITIGATION+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOWER+DUCHESNE+RIVER+WETLANDS+MITIGATION+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER DUCHESNE RIVER WETLANDS MITIGATION PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 6 of 6]
T2  - LOWER DUCHESNE RIVER WETLANDS MITIGATION PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36389490; 13374-080140_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to mitigate impacts of the Strawberry Aqueduct and Collection System (SACS) on portions of the Strawberry Reservoir and the Duchesne River downstream of the Starvation Reservoir in Duchesne and Uintah counties, Utah is proposed. THE SACS is a sophisticated aqueduct system that gathers water from the upper Duchesne River and various tributaries for transport to Strawberry Reservoir for storage and eventual use on the Wasatch Front. Flows diverted from the Duchesne River resulted in the loss of wetlands, riparian habitat, and wetland-associated wildlife along the river between Duchesne and Ouray. As a result, the Ute Indian Tribe lost certain benefits associated with the wetlands. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential economic impacts, acquisition of private land by the federal government, mosquito and weed control, wildlife benefits, and recognition of the SACS impacts on wetlands, with strong support for immediate completion of the mitigation obligation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All three action alternatives are composed of a combination of fee lands to be acquired by the federal government and Tribal Trust lands to be placed under a conservation easement. All lands within the project area would be managed by the Tribe in accordance with plans specified in the project operating agreement and management plans to be negotiated. All three alternatives would use a variety of restoration measures, including rewatering oxbows, connecting oxbows to form contiguous systems, enlarging oxbows, enhancing water quality in oxbows, filling drainage ditches to create large marsh complexes, replanting riparian areas with native trees and shrubs, removing non-native invasive species, and changing management of areas adjacent to wetlands to benefit wildlife. The proposed action would combine the mitigation obligations for the SACS with the Duchesne River Area Canal Rehabilitation Project (DRACR), resulting in a project area of 4,807 acres. The Pahcease and Topanotes alternatives would provide mitigation only for the SACS impacts resulting in a project area of 6,765 acres and 6,648 acres, respectively, within the DRACR mitigation implemented separately. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In meeting the Bureau of Reclamation's responsibilities with respect to the Ute Tribe, the land acquisition and land and water management plan would enhance and protect valuable wetland resources and related fish and wildlife habitat. Reconnection of oxbows would restore natural flooding patterns to the riverine system. A number of upland habitat areas would not be converted to wetlands, but their value to wetland and riparian species would be enhanced by changes in management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project activities would result in loss of some upland habitat for three to five years, affecting songbirds and upland raptors. Individual farmers and lessees would have to alter agricultural and livestock practices within the project area due to the restrictions on grazing and the reservation of 20 percent of crop yields for wildlife use. The conversion of fee lands to federal ownership would reduce the county tax base slightly. The plan would result in a net increase in potential mosquito-producing wetland and irrigated pasture habitats. Noise levels would exceed federal standards within 50 feet of project construction sites during project implementation. Cultural resource surveys for the impacted areas have not yet been completed. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992 and Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0236D, Volume 28, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080140, 811 pages and maps, April 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Easements
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Duchesne River
KW  - Utah
KW  - Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389490?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+DUCHESNE+RIVER+WETLANDS+MITIGATION+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOWER+DUCHESNE+RIVER+WETLANDS+MITIGATION+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER DUCHESNE RIVER WETLANDS MITIGATION PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 5 of 6]
T2  - LOWER DUCHESNE RIVER WETLANDS MITIGATION PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36382436; 13374-080140_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to mitigate impacts of the Strawberry Aqueduct and Collection System (SACS) on portions of the Strawberry Reservoir and the Duchesne River downstream of the Starvation Reservoir in Duchesne and Uintah counties, Utah is proposed. THE SACS is a sophisticated aqueduct system that gathers water from the upper Duchesne River and various tributaries for transport to Strawberry Reservoir for storage and eventual use on the Wasatch Front. Flows diverted from the Duchesne River resulted in the loss of wetlands, riparian habitat, and wetland-associated wildlife along the river between Duchesne and Ouray. As a result, the Ute Indian Tribe lost certain benefits associated with the wetlands. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential economic impacts, acquisition of private land by the federal government, mosquito and weed control, wildlife benefits, and recognition of the SACS impacts on wetlands, with strong support for immediate completion of the mitigation obligation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All three action alternatives are composed of a combination of fee lands to be acquired by the federal government and Tribal Trust lands to be placed under a conservation easement. All lands within the project area would be managed by the Tribe in accordance with plans specified in the project operating agreement and management plans to be negotiated. All three alternatives would use a variety of restoration measures, including rewatering oxbows, connecting oxbows to form contiguous systems, enlarging oxbows, enhancing water quality in oxbows, filling drainage ditches to create large marsh complexes, replanting riparian areas with native trees and shrubs, removing non-native invasive species, and changing management of areas adjacent to wetlands to benefit wildlife. The proposed action would combine the mitigation obligations for the SACS with the Duchesne River Area Canal Rehabilitation Project (DRACR), resulting in a project area of 4,807 acres. The Pahcease and Topanotes alternatives would provide mitigation only for the SACS impacts resulting in a project area of 6,765 acres and 6,648 acres, respectively, within the DRACR mitigation implemented separately. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In meeting the Bureau of Reclamation's responsibilities with respect to the Ute Tribe, the land acquisition and land and water management plan would enhance and protect valuable wetland resources and related fish and wildlife habitat. Reconnection of oxbows would restore natural flooding patterns to the riverine system. A number of upland habitat areas would not be converted to wetlands, but their value to wetland and riparian species would be enhanced by changes in management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project activities would result in loss of some upland habitat for three to five years, affecting songbirds and upland raptors. Individual farmers and lessees would have to alter agricultural and livestock practices within the project area due to the restrictions on grazing and the reservation of 20 percent of crop yields for wildlife use. The conversion of fee lands to federal ownership would reduce the county tax base slightly. The plan would result in a net increase in potential mosquito-producing wetland and irrigated pasture habitats. Noise levels would exceed federal standards within 50 feet of project construction sites during project implementation. Cultural resource surveys for the impacted areas have not yet been completed. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992 and Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0236D, Volume 28, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080140, 811 pages and maps, April 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Easements
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Duchesne River
KW  - Utah
KW  - Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382436?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+DUCHESNE+RIVER+WETLANDS+MITIGATION+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOWER+DUCHESNE+RIVER+WETLANDS+MITIGATION+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER DUCHESNE RIVER WETLANDS MITIGATION PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 4 of 6]
T2  - LOWER DUCHESNE RIVER WETLANDS MITIGATION PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36381883; 13374-080140_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to mitigate impacts of the Strawberry Aqueduct and Collection System (SACS) on portions of the Strawberry Reservoir and the Duchesne River downstream of the Starvation Reservoir in Duchesne and Uintah counties, Utah is proposed. THE SACS is a sophisticated aqueduct system that gathers water from the upper Duchesne River and various tributaries for transport to Strawberry Reservoir for storage and eventual use on the Wasatch Front. Flows diverted from the Duchesne River resulted in the loss of wetlands, riparian habitat, and wetland-associated wildlife along the river between Duchesne and Ouray. As a result, the Ute Indian Tribe lost certain benefits associated with the wetlands. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential economic impacts, acquisition of private land by the federal government, mosquito and weed control, wildlife benefits, and recognition of the SACS impacts on wetlands, with strong support for immediate completion of the mitigation obligation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All three action alternatives are composed of a combination of fee lands to be acquired by the federal government and Tribal Trust lands to be placed under a conservation easement. All lands within the project area would be managed by the Tribe in accordance with plans specified in the project operating agreement and management plans to be negotiated. All three alternatives would use a variety of restoration measures, including rewatering oxbows, connecting oxbows to form contiguous systems, enlarging oxbows, enhancing water quality in oxbows, filling drainage ditches to create large marsh complexes, replanting riparian areas with native trees and shrubs, removing non-native invasive species, and changing management of areas adjacent to wetlands to benefit wildlife. The proposed action would combine the mitigation obligations for the SACS with the Duchesne River Area Canal Rehabilitation Project (DRACR), resulting in a project area of 4,807 acres. The Pahcease and Topanotes alternatives would provide mitigation only for the SACS impacts resulting in a project area of 6,765 acres and 6,648 acres, respectively, within the DRACR mitigation implemented separately. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In meeting the Bureau of Reclamation's responsibilities with respect to the Ute Tribe, the land acquisition and land and water management plan would enhance and protect valuable wetland resources and related fish and wildlife habitat. Reconnection of oxbows would restore natural flooding patterns to the riverine system. A number of upland habitat areas would not be converted to wetlands, but their value to wetland and riparian species would be enhanced by changes in management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project activities would result in loss of some upland habitat for three to five years, affecting songbirds and upland raptors. Individual farmers and lessees would have to alter agricultural and livestock practices within the project area due to the restrictions on grazing and the reservation of 20 percent of crop yields for wildlife use. The conversion of fee lands to federal ownership would reduce the county tax base slightly. The plan would result in a net increase in potential mosquito-producing wetland and irrigated pasture habitats. Noise levels would exceed federal standards within 50 feet of project construction sites during project implementation. Cultural resource surveys for the impacted areas have not yet been completed. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992 and Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0236D, Volume 28, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080140, 811 pages and maps, April 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Easements
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Duchesne River
KW  - Utah
KW  - Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381883?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+DUCHESNE+RIVER+WETLANDS+MITIGATION+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOWER+DUCHESNE+RIVER+WETLANDS+MITIGATION+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER DUCHESNE RIVER WETLANDS MITIGATION PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 3 of 6]
T2  - LOWER DUCHESNE RIVER WETLANDS MITIGATION PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36380365; 13374-080140_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to mitigate impacts of the Strawberry Aqueduct and Collection System (SACS) on portions of the Strawberry Reservoir and the Duchesne River downstream of the Starvation Reservoir in Duchesne and Uintah counties, Utah is proposed. THE SACS is a sophisticated aqueduct system that gathers water from the upper Duchesne River and various tributaries for transport to Strawberry Reservoir for storage and eventual use on the Wasatch Front. Flows diverted from the Duchesne River resulted in the loss of wetlands, riparian habitat, and wetland-associated wildlife along the river between Duchesne and Ouray. As a result, the Ute Indian Tribe lost certain benefits associated with the wetlands. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential economic impacts, acquisition of private land by the federal government, mosquito and weed control, wildlife benefits, and recognition of the SACS impacts on wetlands, with strong support for immediate completion of the mitigation obligation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All three action alternatives are composed of a combination of fee lands to be acquired by the federal government and Tribal Trust lands to be placed under a conservation easement. All lands within the project area would be managed by the Tribe in accordance with plans specified in the project operating agreement and management plans to be negotiated. All three alternatives would use a variety of restoration measures, including rewatering oxbows, connecting oxbows to form contiguous systems, enlarging oxbows, enhancing water quality in oxbows, filling drainage ditches to create large marsh complexes, replanting riparian areas with native trees and shrubs, removing non-native invasive species, and changing management of areas adjacent to wetlands to benefit wildlife. The proposed action would combine the mitigation obligations for the SACS with the Duchesne River Area Canal Rehabilitation Project (DRACR), resulting in a project area of 4,807 acres. The Pahcease and Topanotes alternatives would provide mitigation only for the SACS impacts resulting in a project area of 6,765 acres and 6,648 acres, respectively, within the DRACR mitigation implemented separately. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In meeting the Bureau of Reclamation's responsibilities with respect to the Ute Tribe, the land acquisition and land and water management plan would enhance and protect valuable wetland resources and related fish and wildlife habitat. Reconnection of oxbows would restore natural flooding patterns to the riverine system. A number of upland habitat areas would not be converted to wetlands, but their value to wetland and riparian species would be enhanced by changes in management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project activities would result in loss of some upland habitat for three to five years, affecting songbirds and upland raptors. Individual farmers and lessees would have to alter agricultural and livestock practices within the project area due to the restrictions on grazing and the reservation of 20 percent of crop yields for wildlife use. The conversion of fee lands to federal ownership would reduce the county tax base slightly. The plan would result in a net increase in potential mosquito-producing wetland and irrigated pasture habitats. Noise levels would exceed federal standards within 50 feet of project construction sites during project implementation. Cultural resource surveys for the impacted areas have not yet been completed. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992 and Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0236D, Volume 28, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080140, 811 pages and maps, April 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Easements
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Duchesne River
KW  - Utah
KW  - Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380365?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+DUCHESNE+RIVER+WETLANDS+MITIGATION+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOWER+DUCHESNE+RIVER+WETLANDS+MITIGATION+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER DUCHESNE RIVER WETLANDS MITIGATION PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 2 of 6]
T2  - LOWER DUCHESNE RIVER WETLANDS MITIGATION PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36378804; 13374-080140_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to mitigate impacts of the Strawberry Aqueduct and Collection System (SACS) on portions of the Strawberry Reservoir and the Duchesne River downstream of the Starvation Reservoir in Duchesne and Uintah counties, Utah is proposed. THE SACS is a sophisticated aqueduct system that gathers water from the upper Duchesne River and various tributaries for transport to Strawberry Reservoir for storage and eventual use on the Wasatch Front. Flows diverted from the Duchesne River resulted in the loss of wetlands, riparian habitat, and wetland-associated wildlife along the river between Duchesne and Ouray. As a result, the Ute Indian Tribe lost certain benefits associated with the wetlands. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential economic impacts, acquisition of private land by the federal government, mosquito and weed control, wildlife benefits, and recognition of the SACS impacts on wetlands, with strong support for immediate completion of the mitigation obligation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All three action alternatives are composed of a combination of fee lands to be acquired by the federal government and Tribal Trust lands to be placed under a conservation easement. All lands within the project area would be managed by the Tribe in accordance with plans specified in the project operating agreement and management plans to be negotiated. All three alternatives would use a variety of restoration measures, including rewatering oxbows, connecting oxbows to form contiguous systems, enlarging oxbows, enhancing water quality in oxbows, filling drainage ditches to create large marsh complexes, replanting riparian areas with native trees and shrubs, removing non-native invasive species, and changing management of areas adjacent to wetlands to benefit wildlife. The proposed action would combine the mitigation obligations for the SACS with the Duchesne River Area Canal Rehabilitation Project (DRACR), resulting in a project area of 4,807 acres. The Pahcease and Topanotes alternatives would provide mitigation only for the SACS impacts resulting in a project area of 6,765 acres and 6,648 acres, respectively, within the DRACR mitigation implemented separately. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In meeting the Bureau of Reclamation's responsibilities with respect to the Ute Tribe, the land acquisition and land and water management plan would enhance and protect valuable wetland resources and related fish and wildlife habitat. Reconnection of oxbows would restore natural flooding patterns to the riverine system. A number of upland habitat areas would not be converted to wetlands, but their value to wetland and riparian species would be enhanced by changes in management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project activities would result in loss of some upland habitat for three to five years, affecting songbirds and upland raptors. Individual farmers and lessees would have to alter agricultural and livestock practices within the project area due to the restrictions on grazing and the reservation of 20 percent of crop yields for wildlife use. The conversion of fee lands to federal ownership would reduce the county tax base slightly. The plan would result in a net increase in potential mosquito-producing wetland and irrigated pasture habitats. Noise levels would exceed federal standards within 50 feet of project construction sites during project implementation. Cultural resource surveys for the impacted areas have not yet been completed. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992 and Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0236D, Volume 28, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080140, 811 pages and maps, April 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Canals
KW  - Easements
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Duchesne River
KW  - Utah
KW  - Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378804?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+DUCHESNE+RIVER+WETLANDS+MITIGATION+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=LOWER+DUCHESNE+RIVER+WETLANDS+MITIGATION+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SLEEPING BEAR DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE, MICHIGAN.
AN  - 36424231; 13368
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan (GMP) for the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (SBDNL) in Benzie and Lelanau counties. Michigan is proposed. The 71,291-acre SBDNL, which consists of a mainland portion and North Manitou and South Manitou islands in the northwestern corner of Michigan's Lower Peninsula, was established by Congress in 1970. Named for a complex of coastal sand dunes, the SBDNL features white sand beaches, steep bluffs, thick maple and beech forests, and clear inland lakes. The dunes were ultimately the results of the movement of glaciers through the river valleys and the area that became the Great Lakes basin during the Ice Age. Prehistoric artifacts indicate that Native Americans inhabited the area as long as 3,000 years ago, and the area has experienced several waves of settlers and migrants since. Since the SBDNL's last GMP was completed in 1979, private development adjacent to the area his increased significantly and is continuing to increase, presenting lakeshore administrators. Moreover, since the last GMP went into force a boundary revision was authorized, via amending legislation (1982), to include the Bow Lakes and Miller Hill areas in the SBDNL and, more recently, lands along the Crystal River were added to the area. Finally, recent studies have enhanced the U.S. Park Service's understanding of the lakeshore, and this new information should be incorporated into a revised GMP. One of these studies addresses the possible inclusion of the SBDNL in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Five alternatives for managing the wilderness over the next 20 years, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative, the lakeshore management would primarily emphasize preservation of the area's natural resources and provision enhanced visitor enjoyment of natural, cultural, and recreational resources in a scenic outdoor setting. Approximately 32,200 acres would be proposed for wilderness designation. Visitor-oriented services, interpretive activities, visitor access and facilities, and recreational opportunities would remain much as they are now, except that a few trails and backcountry campgrounds would be added and newly designated campgrounds would be provided on North Manitou Island, Valley View campground would be eliminated, parking at the end of each road (and possibly Plate River Point) would be improved, the possibility of improved boat access near Platte River Point could be studies, motorized boats would not be allowed on Bass Lake and North Bar Lake, improved access would be provided for nonmotorized boats at some inland lakes, the Glen picnic area would be upgraded, occasional ferry service for day trips to North Manitou Island would be allowed, concession auto tours to the Giant Cedars area would be considered, and the Crystal River access area would be upgraded or relocated. Land would continue to be acquired within the Benzie Corridor. Under Alternative A, SBDNL management would primarily emphasize conservation of the area's natural resources, proposing for 33,600 acres for wilderness designation. Alternative B would emphasize the lakeshore's recreational value, particularly those related to the area's scenic nature; 14,400 acres would be proposed for wilderness designation. Alternative C would concentrate visitor use in selected areas, providing for pristine conditions throughout the remainder of the SBDNL; 23,200 acres would be proposed for wilderness designation. One-time capital costs for implementing the preferred alternative are estimated at $17.5 million. Deferred maintenance costs are estimated at $15.4 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $4.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The GMP for the SBDNL under the preferred alternative would manage the area holistically, in its full ecological and cultural context and as part of the surrounding region. Comprehensive guidance would be provided for perpetuating natural systems, preserving cultural resources, and providing opportunities for quality visitor experiences. Historic structures and landscapes would be preserved. Wilderness designation would provide for permanent protection of lands in their natural condition that offer outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation. Lakeshore management would employ 79 full-time staff. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, increased access and visitor opportunities could have a long-term impact on the pristine character of the lakeshore and would result in at least minor disturbance to soils, vegetation, and waterbodies and the associated wildlife habitat. Historic and cultural resource values could also suffer from unintentional damage by the general public and from vandalism. Designation of 32,000 acres as wilderness would remove the affected areas from potential recreation facilities development and restrict access for some visitors to the lakeshore. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 91-479, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080134, 356 pages, Map Insert, April 7, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-17
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Great Lakes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Michigan
KW  - North Manitou Island
KW  - South Manitou Island
KW  - Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 91-479, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36424231?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SLEEPING+BEAR+DUNES+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=SLEEPING+BEAR+DUNES+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 7, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, CULBERSON AND HUDSPETH COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 4 of 4]
T2  - GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, CULBERSON AND HUDSPETH COUNTIES, TEXAS.
AN  - 36389949; 13367-080133_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan (GMP) for 86,416-acre Guadalupe Mountains National Park in Culberson and Hudspeth counties, Texas is proposed. The park includes the Guadalupe Mountains that rise more than 3,000 feet above the Chihuahuan Desert that surrounds them. The mountains are part of a 400-mile-long horseshoe-shaped fossilized reef formation known as the Capitan Reef that extends through a large area of west Texas and southwestern New Mexico. Three internationally significant stratotypes can be found in the park. The mountains' cultural history includes native peoples and a successive wave of European and American explorers. The original GMP for what was then a 76,293-acre national park, which went into effect in 1976, has not been significantly updated yet. In 1978, Congress designated 46,850 acres within the park as wilderness. In 1988 the park was expanded by 10,123 acres to include significant resources to the west of the original boundary. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative. The preferred alternative would emphasize wilderness values and restoration of natural ecosystem processes while expanding recreational opportunities for visitors via a variety of settings. Enhanced interpretation measures would include expansion of visitor facilities and services at the Pine Springs visitor center. New administration facilities would be constructed and a campground would be developed. Facilities and activities would be expanded and improves at other sites throughout the national park. Under Alternative B, park management would emphasize the promotion of wilderness values and the restoration of natural ecosystem processes. Campsites and horse corrals would be closed and the affected sites revegetated. A limited amount of new construction would primarily support resource protection. Improvements in interpretation would be less extensive than under the preferred alternative. Alternative C would expand opportunities for visitors to enjoy a wide range of park settings. new park access and facility improvements would provide activities, interpretation, and visitor gateways to the interior of the park from the south, west, and north as well as recreation opportunities for more diverse visitor groups and improved administrative facilities. Capital cost for implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $97 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $2,933, which remains within the 2008 base budget. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would accommodate sustainable growth and visitor enjoyment within the parks and adapt to changing user group needs, while protecting cultural values and ecosystem diversity and preserving the basic character of the associated areas. Emphasis on wilderness values within the park would result in the restoration and preservation of natural ecosystem processes, while expanding some visitor opportunities and easing visitor access to park settings that were previously difficult to reach. The range of over-night and multi-day destination opportunities. Increased visitation would boost the local and regional economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 200 acres of currently undeveloped land would be developed for park facility siting. Construction on this pristine land would degrade cultural and natural resources and displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Increased visitation at the park would increase incidental disturbance and vandalism. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), P.L. 89-667, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080133, 385 pages, April 7, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-18
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Guadalupe Mountains National Park
KW  - Texas
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - P.L. 89-667, Project Authorization
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389949?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUADALUPE+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CULBERSON+AND+HUDSPETH+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GUADALUPE+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CULBERSON+AND+HUDSPETH+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Salt Flat, Texas; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 7, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, CULBERSON AND HUDSPETH COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 4]
T2  - GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, CULBERSON AND HUDSPETH COUNTIES, TEXAS.
AN  - 36389790; 13367-080133_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan (GMP) for 86,416-acre Guadalupe Mountains National Park in Culberson and Hudspeth counties, Texas is proposed. The park includes the Guadalupe Mountains that rise more than 3,000 feet above the Chihuahuan Desert that surrounds them. The mountains are part of a 400-mile-long horseshoe-shaped fossilized reef formation known as the Capitan Reef that extends through a large area of west Texas and southwestern New Mexico. Three internationally significant stratotypes can be found in the park. The mountains' cultural history includes native peoples and a successive wave of European and American explorers. The original GMP for what was then a 76,293-acre national park, which went into effect in 1976, has not been significantly updated yet. In 1978, Congress designated 46,850 acres within the park as wilderness. In 1988 the park was expanded by 10,123 acres to include significant resources to the west of the original boundary. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative. The preferred alternative would emphasize wilderness values and restoration of natural ecosystem processes while expanding recreational opportunities for visitors via a variety of settings. Enhanced interpretation measures would include expansion of visitor facilities and services at the Pine Springs visitor center. New administration facilities would be constructed and a campground would be developed. Facilities and activities would be expanded and improves at other sites throughout the national park. Under Alternative B, park management would emphasize the promotion of wilderness values and the restoration of natural ecosystem processes. Campsites and horse corrals would be closed and the affected sites revegetated. A limited amount of new construction would primarily support resource protection. Improvements in interpretation would be less extensive than under the preferred alternative. Alternative C would expand opportunities for visitors to enjoy a wide range of park settings. new park access and facility improvements would provide activities, interpretation, and visitor gateways to the interior of the park from the south, west, and north as well as recreation opportunities for more diverse visitor groups and improved administrative facilities. Capital cost for implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $97 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $2,933, which remains within the 2008 base budget. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would accommodate sustainable growth and visitor enjoyment within the parks and adapt to changing user group needs, while protecting cultural values and ecosystem diversity and preserving the basic character of the associated areas. Emphasis on wilderness values within the park would result in the restoration and preservation of natural ecosystem processes, while expanding some visitor opportunities and easing visitor access to park settings that were previously difficult to reach. The range of over-night and multi-day destination opportunities. Increased visitation would boost the local and regional economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 200 acres of currently undeveloped land would be developed for park facility siting. Construction on this pristine land would degrade cultural and natural resources and displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Increased visitation at the park would increase incidental disturbance and vandalism. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), P.L. 89-667, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080133, 385 pages, April 7, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-18
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Guadalupe Mountains National Park
KW  - Texas
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - P.L. 89-667, Project Authorization
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389790?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUADALUPE+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CULBERSON+AND+HUDSPETH+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GUADALUPE+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CULBERSON+AND+HUDSPETH+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Salt Flat, Texas; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 7, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SLEEPING BEAR DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE, MICHIGAN. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - SLEEPING BEAR DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE, MICHIGAN.
AN  - 36387631; 13368-080134_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan (GMP) for the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (SBDNL) in Benzie and Lelanau counties. Michigan is proposed. The 71,291-acre SBDNL, which consists of a mainland portion and North Manitou and South Manitou islands in the northwestern corner of Michigan's Lower Peninsula, was established by Congress in 1970. Named for a complex of coastal sand dunes, the SBDNL features white sand beaches, steep bluffs, thick maple and beech forests, and clear inland lakes. The dunes were ultimately the results of the movement of glaciers through the river valleys and the area that became the Great Lakes basin during the Ice Age. Prehistoric artifacts indicate that Native Americans inhabited the area as long as 3,000 years ago, and the area has experienced several waves of settlers and migrants since. Since the SBDNL's last GMP was completed in 1979, private development adjacent to the area his increased significantly and is continuing to increase, presenting lakeshore administrators. Moreover, since the last GMP went into force a boundary revision was authorized, via amending legislation (1982), to include the Bow Lakes and Miller Hill areas in the SBDNL and, more recently, lands along the Crystal River were added to the area. Finally, recent studies have enhanced the U.S. Park Service's understanding of the lakeshore, and this new information should be incorporated into a revised GMP. One of these studies addresses the possible inclusion of the SBDNL in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Five alternatives for managing the wilderness over the next 20 years, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative, the lakeshore management would primarily emphasize preservation of the area's natural resources and provision enhanced visitor enjoyment of natural, cultural, and recreational resources in a scenic outdoor setting. Approximately 32,200 acres would be proposed for wilderness designation. Visitor-oriented services, interpretive activities, visitor access and facilities, and recreational opportunities would remain much as they are now, except that a few trails and backcountry campgrounds would be added and newly designated campgrounds would be provided on North Manitou Island, Valley View campground would be eliminated, parking at the end of each road (and possibly Plate River Point) would be improved, the possibility of improved boat access near Platte River Point could be studies, motorized boats would not be allowed on Bass Lake and North Bar Lake, improved access would be provided for nonmotorized boats at some inland lakes, the Glen picnic area would be upgraded, occasional ferry service for day trips to North Manitou Island would be allowed, concession auto tours to the Giant Cedars area would be considered, and the Crystal River access area would be upgraded or relocated. Land would continue to be acquired within the Benzie Corridor. Under Alternative A, SBDNL management would primarily emphasize conservation of the area's natural resources, proposing for 33,600 acres for wilderness designation. Alternative B would emphasize the lakeshore's recreational value, particularly those related to the area's scenic nature; 14,400 acres would be proposed for wilderness designation. Alternative C would concentrate visitor use in selected areas, providing for pristine conditions throughout the remainder of the SBDNL; 23,200 acres would be proposed for wilderness designation. One-time capital costs for implementing the preferred alternative are estimated at $17.5 million. Deferred maintenance costs are estimated at $15.4 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $4.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The GMP for the SBDNL under the preferred alternative would manage the area holistically, in its full ecological and cultural context and as part of the surrounding region. Comprehensive guidance would be provided for perpetuating natural systems, preserving cultural resources, and providing opportunities for quality visitor experiences. Historic structures and landscapes would be preserved. Wilderness designation would provide for permanent protection of lands in their natural condition that offer outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation. Lakeshore management would employ 79 full-time staff. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, increased access and visitor opportunities could have a long-term impact on the pristine character of the lakeshore and would result in at least minor disturbance to soils, vegetation, and waterbodies and the associated wildlife habitat. Historic and cultural resource values could also suffer from unintentional damage by the general public and from vandalism. Designation of 32,000 acres as wilderness would remove the affected areas from potential recreation facilities development and restrict access for some visitors to the lakeshore. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 91-479, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080134, 356 pages, Map Insert, April 7, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-17
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Great Lakes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Michigan
KW  - North Manitou Island
KW  - South Manitou Island
KW  - Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 91-479, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36387631?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SLEEPING+BEAR+DUNES+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=SLEEPING+BEAR+DUNES+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 7, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, CULBERSON AND HUDSPETH COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 4]
T2  - GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, CULBERSON AND HUDSPETH COUNTIES, TEXAS.
AN  - 36387494; 13367-080133_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan (GMP) for 86,416-acre Guadalupe Mountains National Park in Culberson and Hudspeth counties, Texas is proposed. The park includes the Guadalupe Mountains that rise more than 3,000 feet above the Chihuahuan Desert that surrounds them. The mountains are part of a 400-mile-long horseshoe-shaped fossilized reef formation known as the Capitan Reef that extends through a large area of west Texas and southwestern New Mexico. Three internationally significant stratotypes can be found in the park. The mountains' cultural history includes native peoples and a successive wave of European and American explorers. The original GMP for what was then a 76,293-acre national park, which went into effect in 1976, has not been significantly updated yet. In 1978, Congress designated 46,850 acres within the park as wilderness. In 1988 the park was expanded by 10,123 acres to include significant resources to the west of the original boundary. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative. The preferred alternative would emphasize wilderness values and restoration of natural ecosystem processes while expanding recreational opportunities for visitors via a variety of settings. Enhanced interpretation measures would include expansion of visitor facilities and services at the Pine Springs visitor center. New administration facilities would be constructed and a campground would be developed. Facilities and activities would be expanded and improves at other sites throughout the national park. Under Alternative B, park management would emphasize the promotion of wilderness values and the restoration of natural ecosystem processes. Campsites and horse corrals would be closed and the affected sites revegetated. A limited amount of new construction would primarily support resource protection. Improvements in interpretation would be less extensive than under the preferred alternative. Alternative C would expand opportunities for visitors to enjoy a wide range of park settings. new park access and facility improvements would provide activities, interpretation, and visitor gateways to the interior of the park from the south, west, and north as well as recreation opportunities for more diverse visitor groups and improved administrative facilities. Capital cost for implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $97 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $2,933, which remains within the 2008 base budget. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would accommodate sustainable growth and visitor enjoyment within the parks and adapt to changing user group needs, while protecting cultural values and ecosystem diversity and preserving the basic character of the associated areas. Emphasis on wilderness values within the park would result in the restoration and preservation of natural ecosystem processes, while expanding some visitor opportunities and easing visitor access to park settings that were previously difficult to reach. The range of over-night and multi-day destination opportunities. Increased visitation would boost the local and regional economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 200 acres of currently undeveloped land would be developed for park facility siting. Construction on this pristine land would degrade cultural and natural resources and displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Increased visitation at the park would increase incidental disturbance and vandalism. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), P.L. 89-667, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080133, 385 pages, April 7, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-18
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Guadalupe Mountains National Park
KW  - Texas
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - P.L. 89-667, Project Authorization
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36387494?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUADALUPE+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CULBERSON+AND+HUDSPETH+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GUADALUPE+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CULBERSON+AND+HUDSPETH+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Salt Flat, Texas; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 7, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, CULBERSON AND HUDSPETH COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 4]
T2  - GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, CULBERSON AND HUDSPETH COUNTIES, TEXAS.
AN  - 36382596; 13367-080133_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan (GMP) for 86,416-acre Guadalupe Mountains National Park in Culberson and Hudspeth counties, Texas is proposed. The park includes the Guadalupe Mountains that rise more than 3,000 feet above the Chihuahuan Desert that surrounds them. The mountains are part of a 400-mile-long horseshoe-shaped fossilized reef formation known as the Capitan Reef that extends through a large area of west Texas and southwestern New Mexico. Three internationally significant stratotypes can be found in the park. The mountains' cultural history includes native peoples and a successive wave of European and American explorers. The original GMP for what was then a 76,293-acre national park, which went into effect in 1976, has not been significantly updated yet. In 1978, Congress designated 46,850 acres within the park as wilderness. In 1988 the park was expanded by 10,123 acres to include significant resources to the west of the original boundary. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative. The preferred alternative would emphasize wilderness values and restoration of natural ecosystem processes while expanding recreational opportunities for visitors via a variety of settings. Enhanced interpretation measures would include expansion of visitor facilities and services at the Pine Springs visitor center. New administration facilities would be constructed and a campground would be developed. Facilities and activities would be expanded and improves at other sites throughout the national park. Under Alternative B, park management would emphasize the promotion of wilderness values and the restoration of natural ecosystem processes. Campsites and horse corrals would be closed and the affected sites revegetated. A limited amount of new construction would primarily support resource protection. Improvements in interpretation would be less extensive than under the preferred alternative. Alternative C would expand opportunities for visitors to enjoy a wide range of park settings. new park access and facility improvements would provide activities, interpretation, and visitor gateways to the interior of the park from the south, west, and north as well as recreation opportunities for more diverse visitor groups and improved administrative facilities. Capital cost for implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $97 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $2,933, which remains within the 2008 base budget. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would accommodate sustainable growth and visitor enjoyment within the parks and adapt to changing user group needs, while protecting cultural values and ecosystem diversity and preserving the basic character of the associated areas. Emphasis on wilderness values within the park would result in the restoration and preservation of natural ecosystem processes, while expanding some visitor opportunities and easing visitor access to park settings that were previously difficult to reach. The range of over-night and multi-day destination opportunities. Increased visitation would boost the local and regional economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 200 acres of currently undeveloped land would be developed for park facility siting. Construction on this pristine land would degrade cultural and natural resources and displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Increased visitation at the park would increase incidental disturbance and vandalism. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), P.L. 89-667, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080133, 385 pages, April 7, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-18
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Guadalupe Mountains National Park
KW  - Texas
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - P.L. 89-667, Project Authorization
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382596?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUADALUPE+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CULBERSON+AND+HUDSPETH+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GUADALUPE+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CULBERSON+AND+HUDSPETH+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Salt Flat, Texas; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 7, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SLEEPING BEAR DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE, MICHIGAN. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - SLEEPING BEAR DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE, MICHIGAN.
AN  - 36380483; 13368-080134_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan (GMP) for the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (SBDNL) in Benzie and Lelanau counties. Michigan is proposed. The 71,291-acre SBDNL, which consists of a mainland portion and North Manitou and South Manitou islands in the northwestern corner of Michigan's Lower Peninsula, was established by Congress in 1970. Named for a complex of coastal sand dunes, the SBDNL features white sand beaches, steep bluffs, thick maple and beech forests, and clear inland lakes. The dunes were ultimately the results of the movement of glaciers through the river valleys and the area that became the Great Lakes basin during the Ice Age. Prehistoric artifacts indicate that Native Americans inhabited the area as long as 3,000 years ago, and the area has experienced several waves of settlers and migrants since. Since the SBDNL's last GMP was completed in 1979, private development adjacent to the area his increased significantly and is continuing to increase, presenting lakeshore administrators. Moreover, since the last GMP went into force a boundary revision was authorized, via amending legislation (1982), to include the Bow Lakes and Miller Hill areas in the SBDNL and, more recently, lands along the Crystal River were added to the area. Finally, recent studies have enhanced the U.S. Park Service's understanding of the lakeshore, and this new information should be incorporated into a revised GMP. One of these studies addresses the possible inclusion of the SBDNL in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Five alternatives for managing the wilderness over the next 20 years, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative, the lakeshore management would primarily emphasize preservation of the area's natural resources and provision enhanced visitor enjoyment of natural, cultural, and recreational resources in a scenic outdoor setting. Approximately 32,200 acres would be proposed for wilderness designation. Visitor-oriented services, interpretive activities, visitor access and facilities, and recreational opportunities would remain much as they are now, except that a few trails and backcountry campgrounds would be added and newly designated campgrounds would be provided on North Manitou Island, Valley View campground would be eliminated, parking at the end of each road (and possibly Plate River Point) would be improved, the possibility of improved boat access near Platte River Point could be studies, motorized boats would not be allowed on Bass Lake and North Bar Lake, improved access would be provided for nonmotorized boats at some inland lakes, the Glen picnic area would be upgraded, occasional ferry service for day trips to North Manitou Island would be allowed, concession auto tours to the Giant Cedars area would be considered, and the Crystal River access area would be upgraded or relocated. Land would continue to be acquired within the Benzie Corridor. Under Alternative A, SBDNL management would primarily emphasize conservation of the area's natural resources, proposing for 33,600 acres for wilderness designation. Alternative B would emphasize the lakeshore's recreational value, particularly those related to the area's scenic nature; 14,400 acres would be proposed for wilderness designation. Alternative C would concentrate visitor use in selected areas, providing for pristine conditions throughout the remainder of the SBDNL; 23,200 acres would be proposed for wilderness designation. One-time capital costs for implementing the preferred alternative are estimated at $17.5 million. Deferred maintenance costs are estimated at $15.4 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $4.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The GMP for the SBDNL under the preferred alternative would manage the area holistically, in its full ecological and cultural context and as part of the surrounding region. Comprehensive guidance would be provided for perpetuating natural systems, preserving cultural resources, and providing opportunities for quality visitor experiences. Historic structures and landscapes would be preserved. Wilderness designation would provide for permanent protection of lands in their natural condition that offer outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation. Lakeshore management would employ 79 full-time staff. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, increased access and visitor opportunities could have a long-term impact on the pristine character of the lakeshore and would result in at least minor disturbance to soils, vegetation, and waterbodies and the associated wildlife habitat. Historic and cultural resource values could also suffer from unintentional damage by the general public and from vandalism. Designation of 32,000 acres as wilderness would remove the affected areas from potential recreation facilities development and restrict access for some visitors to the lakeshore. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 91-479, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080134, 356 pages, Map Insert, April 7, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-17
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Great Lakes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Michigan
KW  - North Manitou Island
KW  - South Manitou Island
KW  - Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 91-479, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380483?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SLEEPING+BEAR+DUNES+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=SLEEPING+BEAR+DUNES+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 7, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, CULBERSON AND HUDSPETH COUNTIES, TEXAS.
AN  - 16382912; 13367
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan (GMP) for 86,416-acre Guadalupe Mountains National Park in Culberson and Hudspeth counties, Texas is proposed. The park includes the Guadalupe Mountains that rise more than 3,000 feet above the Chihuahuan Desert that surrounds them. The mountains are part of a 400-mile-long horseshoe-shaped fossilized reef formation known as the Capitan Reef that extends through a large area of west Texas and southwestern New Mexico. Three internationally significant stratotypes can be found in the park. The mountains' cultural history includes native peoples and a successive wave of European and American explorers. The original GMP for what was then a 76,293-acre national park, which went into effect in 1976, has not been significantly updated yet. In 1978, Congress designated 46,850 acres within the park as wilderness. In 1988 the park was expanded by 10,123 acres to include significant resources to the west of the original boundary. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative. The preferred alternative would emphasize wilderness values and restoration of natural ecosystem processes while expanding recreational opportunities for visitors via a variety of settings. Enhanced interpretation measures would include expansion of visitor facilities and services at the Pine Springs visitor center. New administration facilities would be constructed and a campground would be developed. Facilities and activities would be expanded and improves at other sites throughout the national park. Under Alternative B, park management would emphasize the promotion of wilderness values and the restoration of natural ecosystem processes. Campsites and horse corrals would be closed and the affected sites revegetated. A limited amount of new construction would primarily support resource protection. Improvements in interpretation would be less extensive than under the preferred alternative. Alternative C would expand opportunities for visitors to enjoy a wide range of park settings. new park access and facility improvements would provide activities, interpretation, and visitor gateways to the interior of the park from the south, west, and north as well as recreation opportunities for more diverse visitor groups and improved administrative facilities. Capital cost for implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $97 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $2,933, which remains within the 2008 base budget. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would accommodate sustainable growth and visitor enjoyment within the parks and adapt to changing user group needs, while protecting cultural values and ecosystem diversity and preserving the basic character of the associated areas. Emphasis on wilderness values within the park would result in the restoration and preservation of natural ecosystem processes, while expanding some visitor opportunities and easing visitor access to park settings that were previously difficult to reach. The range of over-night and multi-day destination opportunities. Increased visitation would boost the local and regional economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 200 acres of currently undeveloped land would be developed for park facility siting. Construction on this pristine land would degrade cultural and natural resources and displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Increased visitation at the park would increase incidental disturbance and vandalism. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), P.L. 89-667, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080133, 385 pages, April 7, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-18
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Guadalupe Mountains National Park
KW  - Texas
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - P.L. 89-667, Project Authorization
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16382912?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-04-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUADALUPE+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CULBERSON+AND+HUDSPETH+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GUADALUPE+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CULBERSON+AND+HUDSPETH+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Salt Flat, Texas; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 7, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PIPESTONE NATIONAL MONUMENT, PIPESTONE COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 36413039; 13357
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan for the Pipestone National Monument in Pipestone County, Minnesota is proposed. The monument protects quarries of pipestone (calamite)) that have been used by native Americans since prehistoric times. Pipestone is carved into objects, most notably pipes, for use in sacred rituals. The quarries remain sites of sacred importance to Native Americans. The national monument also contains examples of remnant prairie types, some globally threatened, a and habitat for two federally listed wildlife species, one endangered and one threatened. The approved general management plan, which would guide the management of the monument for the next 15 to 200 years, would establish a direction for managing cultural and natural resources, the visitor experience, and Native American cultural uses. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to sensitivity to and interpretation of Native American practices and traditions associated with the quarries and related sacred sites, inadequate facilities, external threats to t he national monument's integrity from development along or visible from its boundaries, and preservation of the superintendent's house of the former Pipestone Indian School, which lies outside the monument boundaries. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime approved in 1966, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 1) would emphasize reducing development in the heart of the national monument. The focus would be on the setting, site history, and spiritual significance of the monument as a source of pipestone. The existing visitor center would be removed from among the quarries. This, along with ongoing prairie restoration, would enable visitors to experience the site much as it appeared prehistorically and to sense the significance of the site to American Indians. A new entrance would be created on the east side of the monument just north o9f Pipestone Creek. The visitor center, museum, archives, research facilities, and maintenance facilities would be moved outside of the monument. The entry road would be shortened to end n a small parking area at the south quarry entrance. The picnic area would be removed from the monument and the area restored to prairie. Prairie would also be restored on 15.3 acres of school district land to be acquired south of the Minnesota West Community and Technical College. Sun Dances would be permitted, but modifications of use might be made on the basis of impacts and the sustainability of resources. New visitor trails would be developed to reach the existing trail system. Initial capital costs and annual operating costs under the preferred alternative are estimated at $1.8 million and $11.9 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The approved plan would replace the obsolete 1966 management plan, which addressed only facility development, and provide a framework for proactive decision-making, including decisions about management cultural and natural resources and about visitor use and development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Razing the Mission 66 visitor center would result in the loss of a structure eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. To those Native Americans who believe that the national monument is not a traditional Sun Dance site, continuing to allow Sun Dances to take place would be culturally inappropriate and would, therefore, constitute a moderate, adverse, long-term impact in relation to their worldview about revitalizing and reinforcing their traditional identity. Severe flooding, which is infrequent at the site, could endanger visitors, employees, and monument facilities and other property. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). The establishing legislation (identified only as 50 Stat. 804) is provided in full-text as Appendix B. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0105D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080123, 348 pages, March 28, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-12
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Housing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Quarries
KW  - Museums
KW  - Parking
KW  - Roads
KW  - Schools
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Pipestone National Monument
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36413039?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIPESTONE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+PIPESTONE+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=PIPESTONE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+PIPESTONE+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 28, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PIPESTONE NATIONAL MONUMENT, PIPESTONE COUNTY, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - PIPESTONE NATIONAL MONUMENT, PIPESTONE COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 36394513; 13357-080123_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan for the Pipestone National Monument in Pipestone County, Minnesota is proposed. The monument protects quarries of pipestone (calamite)) that have been used by native Americans since prehistoric times. Pipestone is carved into objects, most notably pipes, for use in sacred rituals. The quarries remain sites of sacred importance to Native Americans. The national monument also contains examples of remnant prairie types, some globally threatened, a and habitat for two federally listed wildlife species, one endangered and one threatened. The approved general management plan, which would guide the management of the monument for the next 15 to 200 years, would establish a direction for managing cultural and natural resources, the visitor experience, and Native American cultural uses. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to sensitivity to and interpretation of Native American practices and traditions associated with the quarries and related sacred sites, inadequate facilities, external threats to t he national monument's integrity from development along or visible from its boundaries, and preservation of the superintendent's house of the former Pipestone Indian School, which lies outside the monument boundaries. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime approved in 1966, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 1) would emphasize reducing development in the heart of the national monument. The focus would be on the setting, site history, and spiritual significance of the monument as a source of pipestone. The existing visitor center would be removed from among the quarries. This, along with ongoing prairie restoration, would enable visitors to experience the site much as it appeared prehistorically and to sense the significance of the site to American Indians. A new entrance would be created on the east side of the monument just north o9f Pipestone Creek. The visitor center, museum, archives, research facilities, and maintenance facilities would be moved outside of the monument. The entry road would be shortened to end n a small parking area at the south quarry entrance. The picnic area would be removed from the monument and the area restored to prairie. Prairie would also be restored on 15.3 acres of school district land to be acquired south of the Minnesota West Community and Technical College. Sun Dances would be permitted, but modifications of use might be made on the basis of impacts and the sustainability of resources. New visitor trails would be developed to reach the existing trail system. Initial capital costs and annual operating costs under the preferred alternative are estimated at $1.8 million and $11.9 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The approved plan would replace the obsolete 1966 management plan, which addressed only facility development, and provide a framework for proactive decision-making, including decisions about management cultural and natural resources and about visitor use and development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Razing the Mission 66 visitor center would result in the loss of a structure eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. To those Native Americans who believe that the national monument is not a traditional Sun Dance site, continuing to allow Sun Dances to take place would be culturally inappropriate and would, therefore, constitute a moderate, adverse, long-term impact in relation to their worldview about revitalizing and reinforcing their traditional identity. Severe flooding, which is infrequent at the site, could endanger visitors, employees, and monument facilities and other property. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). The establishing legislation (identified only as 50 Stat. 804) is provided in full-text as Appendix B. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0105D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080123, 348 pages, March 28, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-12
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Housing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Quarries
KW  - Museums
KW  - Parking
KW  - Roads
KW  - Schools
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Pipestone National Monument
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36394513?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIPESTONE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+PIPESTONE+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=PIPESTONE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+PIPESTONE+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 28, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PIPESTONE NATIONAL MONUMENT, PIPESTONE COUNTY, MINNESOTA. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - PIPESTONE NATIONAL MONUMENT, PIPESTONE COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 36382733; 13357-080123_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan for the Pipestone National Monument in Pipestone County, Minnesota is proposed. The monument protects quarries of pipestone (calamite)) that have been used by native Americans since prehistoric times. Pipestone is carved into objects, most notably pipes, for use in sacred rituals. The quarries remain sites of sacred importance to Native Americans. The national monument also contains examples of remnant prairie types, some globally threatened, a and habitat for two federally listed wildlife species, one endangered and one threatened. The approved general management plan, which would guide the management of the monument for the next 15 to 200 years, would establish a direction for managing cultural and natural resources, the visitor experience, and Native American cultural uses. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to sensitivity to and interpretation of Native American practices and traditions associated with the quarries and related sacred sites, inadequate facilities, external threats to t he national monument's integrity from development along or visible from its boundaries, and preservation of the superintendent's house of the former Pipestone Indian School, which lies outside the monument boundaries. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime approved in 1966, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 1) would emphasize reducing development in the heart of the national monument. The focus would be on the setting, site history, and spiritual significance of the monument as a source of pipestone. The existing visitor center would be removed from among the quarries. This, along with ongoing prairie restoration, would enable visitors to experience the site much as it appeared prehistorically and to sense the significance of the site to American Indians. A new entrance would be created on the east side of the monument just north o9f Pipestone Creek. The visitor center, museum, archives, research facilities, and maintenance facilities would be moved outside of the monument. The entry road would be shortened to end n a small parking area at the south quarry entrance. The picnic area would be removed from the monument and the area restored to prairie. Prairie would also be restored on 15.3 acres of school district land to be acquired south of the Minnesota West Community and Technical College. Sun Dances would be permitted, but modifications of use might be made on the basis of impacts and the sustainability of resources. New visitor trails would be developed to reach the existing trail system. Initial capital costs and annual operating costs under the preferred alternative are estimated at $1.8 million and $11.9 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The approved plan would replace the obsolete 1966 management plan, which addressed only facility development, and provide a framework for proactive decision-making, including decisions about management cultural and natural resources and about visitor use and development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Razing the Mission 66 visitor center would result in the loss of a structure eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. To those Native Americans who believe that the national monument is not a traditional Sun Dance site, continuing to allow Sun Dances to take place would be culturally inappropriate and would, therefore, constitute a moderate, adverse, long-term impact in relation to their worldview about revitalizing and reinforcing their traditional identity. Severe flooding, which is infrequent at the site, could endanger visitors, employees, and monument facilities and other property. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). The establishing legislation (identified only as 50 Stat. 804) is provided in full-text as Appendix B. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0105D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080123, 348 pages, March 28, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-12
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Housing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Quarries
KW  - Museums
KW  - Parking
KW  - Roads
KW  - Schools
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Pipestone National Monument
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382733?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIPESTONE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+PIPESTONE+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=PIPESTONE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+PIPESTONE+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 28, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LONG DRAW RESERVOIR SPECIAL USE AUTHORIZATION, ARAPAHO AND ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FORESTS AND PAWNEE NATIONAL GRASSLAND, GRAND AND LARIMER COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 36424329; 13340
AB  - PURPOSE: The reissuance of a special use permit (SUP) to the Water Supply and Storage Company (WSSC) for the continued occupancy and operation of the expanded portion of Long Draw Reservoir within the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest, the Pawnee National Grassland, and the Rocky Mountain National Park and Grand and Larimer counties, Colorado is proposed. The existing Long Draw Reservoir and Dam, which is the result of a 1974 enlargement of the original structure, was authorized by t he Roosevelt National Forest until 1991, when the SUP expired. In 1994, the Forest Service published an EIS proposing re-issuance of a SUP for the dam and reservoir and three other facilities in the basin. The process resulted in the decision to issue a 50-year easement for the expanded portion of the reservoir. This decision, which included a plan for releasing winter flows off-site when there were extended periods of zero stream flows below the Long Draw Reservoir, was challenged by Trout Unlimited in a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. In April 2004, the court reversed the decision of the Forest Service for violation of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The WSSC needs Long Draw Reservoir to provide water for irrigation of farmland in Larimer and Weld counties. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to damage to La Poudre Pass Creek, off-site flow mitigation, on-site flow mitigation, and safety concerns regarding operating the dam during winter months. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would continue current management through ongoing operations of the dam, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would utilize in kind methods to directly address damage from ongoing operations of the reservoir. Specifically, Alternative 2 would provide for releases of water quality enhancement flows designed to emulate the winter flows from La Poudre Pass Creek watershed without requiring release of stored water from the reservoir. Alternative 3, which has been identified as the environmentally preferable alternative, would implement off-site mitigation that would not be flow-related to address damage caused by various flows from the operations of the reservoir. Alternative 3 would maintain the current summer and winter operations of Long Draw Reservoir with no changes in releases or flows. This alternative would mitigate for 0hysical damage to the environment with a biological solution that would incorporate both the reservoir and La Poudre Pass Creek. Populations of greenback cutthroat trout would be established in the Rocky Mountain National Park and Forest in streams connected to La Poudre Pass Creek and the reservoir, which would also be included in the restoration effort. Alternative 4 would compensate for reservoir-related damages via off-site flow mitigation while maintaining the current winter and summer operations of the reservoir. Specifically, Alternative 4 would provide for flows off-site within the upper Colorado River basin to restore flows into streams currently dewatered by the Grand Ditch to restore wetlands in the Kawuneeche Valley within Rocky Mountain National Park. This alternative would require summer releases from Grand Ditch into Red Gulch and Lost Creeks; this water would then flow into wetlands in the Kawuneeche Valley. Present net value costs of alternatives 2, 3, and 4 over a 30-year horizon are estimated at $2.34 million, $1.05 million, and $1.18 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of the Long Draw Reservoir would ensure the delivery of irrigation water to agricultural interests in the two affected counties, maintaining the viability of farmland and the socioeconomic health of the associated communities The preferred alternative would not improve aquatic habitats below the dam No change in the current operations of the operations of the reservoir would be necessary. Public safety would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would significantly benefit federal and state efforts toward restoration of native trout in the national park and national forest and would mitigate for damage caused by the operation of the Long Draw Reservoir. Restoration activities could result in short-term adverse impacts to river otter, boreal toad, wood frog, and leopard frog. Chemical removal of fish from the reservoir would have short-term adverse impacts on recreation and wilderness values; however, both values would be enhanced in the long-term due to restoration of native species to the restored habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080106, 164 pages, March 20, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Safety
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Arapaho National Forest
KW  - Colorado
KW  - La Poudre Pass Creek
KW  - Pawnee National Grassland
KW  - Rocky Mountain National park
KW  - Roosevelt National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36424329?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LONG+DRAW+RESERVOIR+SPECIAL+USE+AUTHORIZATION%2C+ARAPAHO+AND+ROOSEVELT+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+PAWNEE+NATIONAL+GRASSLAND%2C+GRAND+AND+LARIMER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=LONG+DRAW+RESERVOIR+SPECIAL+USE+AUTHORIZATION%2C+ARAPAHO+AND+ROOSEVELT+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+PAWNEE+NATIONAL+GRASSLAND%2C+GRAND+AND+LARIMER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 20, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRUST AND GAMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CITIES OF RICHMOND AND SAN PABLO AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 8]
T2  - SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRUST AND GAMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CITIES OF RICHMOND AND SAN PABLO AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36393030; 13344-080110_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 29.87 acres of Native American land held by The Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians into federal trust administration in unincorporated Contra Costa County is proposed to provide for The development of a gaming center (casino) in The vicinity of The cities of Richmond and San Pablo. Four commercial development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred casino Alternative (Alternative A) would result in The development of a 225,00-square-foot casino complex. Project components would include a porte-cochere, main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, and administrative space. Approximately 79,320 square feet of this building space would be devoted to The main gaming hall, while The balance of The facility would include administrative space, small retail shops, food and beverage facilities, and a small gift and art shop. Approximately 3,549 parking spaces would be provided for The casino users, including spaces within a four-level parking structure. The casino would be built on land within an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. Regional access to The proposed site would be provided via Interstate 80 (I-80) and I-580. Richmond Parkway, Parr Boulevard, and Goodrick Road would provide local access to The casino. Alternatives B, C, and D, respectively, would provide a reduced casino development, a reduced casino development with additional retail space, and a development providing retail space only. The appendices, which are provided and covered here for the first time, address various affected environmental resources and processes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The trust transfer and subsequent casino development would provide for land uses that would improve The long-term economic condition of The Scotts Valley Pomo Indian Tribe and its members through The development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue that would take advantage of The tribe's restored trust land base. Revenues generated from The development would be used to support social and educational programs for The elderly, The poor, and younger tribal members, as well as support The development of other services over time that would serve tribal members and relocated Native Americans in The Bay area. The development would promote self-governance capability of The tribe through The highest and best use of The restored trust land base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb soils and destroy vegetation and exacerbate erosion and sedimentation of receiving flows. Increases in impermeable surface would increase runoff, including runoff of contaminants, further degrading surface water quality. Soil conditions could affect The ground stability of The area, and The development would lie within a seismically active zone. Cultural resource sites could be disturbed, though preliminary investigations have found none. user traffic added to The study area roadway system would contribute to The unacceptable operating conditions of several roadway segments and intersections. LEGAL MANDATES: California Rancheria Termination Act of 1958, as amended (P.L. 88-419) 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 06-0284D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080110, Final EIS--2,277 pages and maps; Comments and Responses--987 pages, March 20, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - California
KW  - California Rancheria Termination Act of 1958, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36393030?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SCOTTS+VALLEY+BAND+OF+POMO+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+GAMING+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CITIES+OF+RICHMOND+AND+SAN+PABLO+AND+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SCOTTS+VALLEY+BAND+OF+POMO+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+GAMING+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CITIES+OF+RICHMOND+AND+SAN+PABLO+AND+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of The Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 20, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRUST AND GAMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CITIES OF RICHMOND AND SAN PABLO AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 8]
T2  - SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRUST AND GAMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CITIES OF RICHMOND AND SAN PABLO AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36384577; 13344-080110_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 29.87 acres of Native American land held by The Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians into federal trust administration in unincorporated Contra Costa County is proposed to provide for The development of a gaming center (casino) in The vicinity of The cities of Richmond and San Pablo. Four commercial development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred casino Alternative (Alternative A) would result in The development of a 225,00-square-foot casino complex. Project components would include a porte-cochere, main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, and administrative space. Approximately 79,320 square feet of this building space would be devoted to The main gaming hall, while The balance of The facility would include administrative space, small retail shops, food and beverage facilities, and a small gift and art shop. Approximately 3,549 parking spaces would be provided for The casino users, including spaces within a four-level parking structure. The casino would be built on land within an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. Regional access to The proposed site would be provided via Interstate 80 (I-80) and I-580. Richmond Parkway, Parr Boulevard, and Goodrick Road would provide local access to The casino. Alternatives B, C, and D, respectively, would provide a reduced casino development, a reduced casino development with additional retail space, and a development providing retail space only. The appendices, which are provided and covered here for the first time, address various affected environmental resources and processes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The trust transfer and subsequent casino development would provide for land uses that would improve The long-term economic condition of The Scotts Valley Pomo Indian Tribe and its members through The development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue that would take advantage of The tribe's restored trust land base. Revenues generated from The development would be used to support social and educational programs for The elderly, The poor, and younger tribal members, as well as support The development of other services over time that would serve tribal members and relocated Native Americans in The Bay area. The development would promote self-governance capability of The tribe through The highest and best use of The restored trust land base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb soils and destroy vegetation and exacerbate erosion and sedimentation of receiving flows. Increases in impermeable surface would increase runoff, including runoff of contaminants, further degrading surface water quality. Soil conditions could affect The ground stability of The area, and The development would lie within a seismically active zone. Cultural resource sites could be disturbed, though preliminary investigations have found none. user traffic added to The study area roadway system would contribute to The unacceptable operating conditions of several roadway segments and intersections. LEGAL MANDATES: California Rancheria Termination Act of 1958, as amended (P.L. 88-419) 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 06-0284D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080110, Final EIS--2,277 pages and maps; Comments and Responses--987 pages, March 20, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - California
KW  - California Rancheria Termination Act of 1958, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384577?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SCOTTS+VALLEY+BAND+OF+POMO+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+GAMING+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CITIES+OF+RICHMOND+AND+SAN+PABLO+AND+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SCOTTS+VALLEY+BAND+OF+POMO+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+GAMING+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CITIES+OF+RICHMOND+AND+SAN+PABLO+AND+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of The Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 20, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRUST AND GAMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CITIES OF RICHMOND AND SAN PABLO AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 8]
T2  - SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRUST AND GAMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CITIES OF RICHMOND AND SAN PABLO AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36383802; 13344-080110_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 29.87 acres of Native American land held by The Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians into federal trust administration in unincorporated Contra Costa County is proposed to provide for The development of a gaming center (casino) in The vicinity of The cities of Richmond and San Pablo. Four commercial development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred casino Alternative (Alternative A) would result in The development of a 225,00-square-foot casino complex. Project components would include a porte-cochere, main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, and administrative space. Approximately 79,320 square feet of this building space would be devoted to The main gaming hall, while The balance of The facility would include administrative space, small retail shops, food and beverage facilities, and a small gift and art shop. Approximately 3,549 parking spaces would be provided for The casino users, including spaces within a four-level parking structure. The casino would be built on land within an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. Regional access to The proposed site would be provided via Interstate 80 (I-80) and I-580. Richmond Parkway, Parr Boulevard, and Goodrick Road would provide local access to The casino. Alternatives B, C, and D, respectively, would provide a reduced casino development, a reduced casino development with additional retail space, and a development providing retail space only. The appendices, which are provided and covered here for the first time, address various affected environmental resources and processes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The trust transfer and subsequent casino development would provide for land uses that would improve The long-term economic condition of The Scotts Valley Pomo Indian Tribe and its members through The development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue that would take advantage of The tribe's restored trust land base. Revenues generated from The development would be used to support social and educational programs for The elderly, The poor, and younger tribal members, as well as support The development of other services over time that would serve tribal members and relocated Native Americans in The Bay area. The development would promote self-governance capability of The tribe through The highest and best use of The restored trust land base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb soils and destroy vegetation and exacerbate erosion and sedimentation of receiving flows. Increases in impermeable surface would increase runoff, including runoff of contaminants, further degrading surface water quality. Soil conditions could affect The ground stability of The area, and The development would lie within a seismically active zone. Cultural resource sites could be disturbed, though preliminary investigations have found none. user traffic added to The study area roadway system would contribute to The unacceptable operating conditions of several roadway segments and intersections. LEGAL MANDATES: California Rancheria Termination Act of 1958, as amended (P.L. 88-419) 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 06-0284D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080110, Final EIS--2,277 pages and maps; Comments and Responses--987 pages, March 20, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 8
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - California
KW  - California Rancheria Termination Act of 1958, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383802?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SCOTTS+VALLEY+BAND+OF+POMO+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+GAMING+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CITIES+OF+RICHMOND+AND+SAN+PABLO+AND+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SCOTTS+VALLEY+BAND+OF+POMO+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+GAMING+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CITIES+OF+RICHMOND+AND+SAN+PABLO+AND+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of The Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 20, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRUST AND GAMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CITIES OF RICHMOND AND SAN PABLO AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 8]
T2  - SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRUST AND GAMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CITIES OF RICHMOND AND SAN PABLO AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36383713; 13344-080110_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 29.87 acres of Native American land held by The Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians into federal trust administration in unincorporated Contra Costa County is proposed to provide for The development of a gaming center (casino) in The vicinity of The cities of Richmond and San Pablo. Four commercial development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred casino Alternative (Alternative A) would result in The development of a 225,00-square-foot casino complex. Project components would include a porte-cochere, main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, and administrative space. Approximately 79,320 square feet of this building space would be devoted to The main gaming hall, while The balance of The facility would include administrative space, small retail shops, food and beverage facilities, and a small gift and art shop. Approximately 3,549 parking spaces would be provided for The casino users, including spaces within a four-level parking structure. The casino would be built on land within an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. Regional access to The proposed site would be provided via Interstate 80 (I-80) and I-580. Richmond Parkway, Parr Boulevard, and Goodrick Road would provide local access to The casino. Alternatives B, C, and D, respectively, would provide a reduced casino development, a reduced casino development with additional retail space, and a development providing retail space only. The appendices, which are provided and covered here for the first time, address various affected environmental resources and processes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The trust transfer and subsequent casino development would provide for land uses that would improve The long-term economic condition of The Scotts Valley Pomo Indian Tribe and its members through The development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue that would take advantage of The tribe's restored trust land base. Revenues generated from The development would be used to support social and educational programs for The elderly, The poor, and younger tribal members, as well as support The development of other services over time that would serve tribal members and relocated Native Americans in The Bay area. The development would promote self-governance capability of The tribe through The highest and best use of The restored trust land base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb soils and destroy vegetation and exacerbate erosion and sedimentation of receiving flows. Increases in impermeable surface would increase runoff, including runoff of contaminants, further degrading surface water quality. Soil conditions could affect The ground stability of The area, and The development would lie within a seismically active zone. Cultural resource sites could be disturbed, though preliminary investigations have found none. user traffic added to The study area roadway system would contribute to The unacceptable operating conditions of several roadway segments and intersections. LEGAL MANDATES: California Rancheria Termination Act of 1958, as amended (P.L. 88-419) 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 06-0284D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080110, Final EIS--2,277 pages and maps; Comments and Responses--987 pages, March 20, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - California
KW  - California Rancheria Termination Act of 1958, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383713?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SCOTTS+VALLEY+BAND+OF+POMO+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+GAMING+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CITIES+OF+RICHMOND+AND+SAN+PABLO+AND+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SCOTTS+VALLEY+BAND+OF+POMO+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+GAMING+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CITIES+OF+RICHMOND+AND+SAN+PABLO+AND+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of The Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 20, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRUST AND GAMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CITIES OF RICHMOND AND SAN PABLO AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 8]
T2  - SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRUST AND GAMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CITIES OF RICHMOND AND SAN PABLO AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36383648; 13344-080110_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 29.87 acres of Native American land held by The Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians into federal trust administration in unincorporated Contra Costa County is proposed to provide for The development of a gaming center (casino) in The vicinity of The cities of Richmond and San Pablo. Four commercial development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred casino Alternative (Alternative A) would result in The development of a 225,00-square-foot casino complex. Project components would include a porte-cochere, main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, and administrative space. Approximately 79,320 square feet of this building space would be devoted to The main gaming hall, while The balance of The facility would include administrative space, small retail shops, food and beverage facilities, and a small gift and art shop. Approximately 3,549 parking spaces would be provided for The casino users, including spaces within a four-level parking structure. The casino would be built on land within an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. Regional access to The proposed site would be provided via Interstate 80 (I-80) and I-580. Richmond Parkway, Parr Boulevard, and Goodrick Road would provide local access to The casino. Alternatives B, C, and D, respectively, would provide a reduced casino development, a reduced casino development with additional retail space, and a development providing retail space only. The appendices, which are provided and covered here for the first time, address various affected environmental resources and processes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The trust transfer and subsequent casino development would provide for land uses that would improve The long-term economic condition of The Scotts Valley Pomo Indian Tribe and its members through The development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue that would take advantage of The tribe's restored trust land base. Revenues generated from The development would be used to support social and educational programs for The elderly, The poor, and younger tribal members, as well as support The development of other services over time that would serve tribal members and relocated Native Americans in The Bay area. The development would promote self-governance capability of The tribe through The highest and best use of The restored trust land base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb soils and destroy vegetation and exacerbate erosion and sedimentation of receiving flows. Increases in impermeable surface would increase runoff, including runoff of contaminants, further degrading surface water quality. Soil conditions could affect The ground stability of The area, and The development would lie within a seismically active zone. Cultural resource sites could be disturbed, though preliminary investigations have found none. user traffic added to The study area roadway system would contribute to The unacceptable operating conditions of several roadway segments and intersections. LEGAL MANDATES: California Rancheria Termination Act of 1958, as amended (P.L. 88-419) 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 06-0284D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080110, Final EIS--2,277 pages and maps; Comments and Responses--987 pages, March 20, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - California
KW  - California Rancheria Termination Act of 1958, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383648?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SCOTTS+VALLEY+BAND+OF+POMO+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+GAMING+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CITIES+OF+RICHMOND+AND+SAN+PABLO+AND+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SCOTTS+VALLEY+BAND+OF+POMO+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+GAMING+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CITIES+OF+RICHMOND+AND+SAN+PABLO+AND+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of The Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 20, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRUST AND GAMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CITIES OF RICHMOND AND SAN PABLO AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 8]
T2  - SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRUST AND GAMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CITIES OF RICHMOND AND SAN PABLO AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36383459; 13344-080110_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 29.87 acres of Native American land held by The Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians into federal trust administration in unincorporated Contra Costa County is proposed to provide for The development of a gaming center (casino) in The vicinity of The cities of Richmond and San Pablo. Four commercial development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred casino Alternative (Alternative A) would result in The development of a 225,00-square-foot casino complex. Project components would include a porte-cochere, main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, and administrative space. Approximately 79,320 square feet of this building space would be devoted to The main gaming hall, while The balance of The facility would include administrative space, small retail shops, food and beverage facilities, and a small gift and art shop. Approximately 3,549 parking spaces would be provided for The casino users, including spaces within a four-level parking structure. The casino would be built on land within an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. Regional access to The proposed site would be provided via Interstate 80 (I-80) and I-580. Richmond Parkway, Parr Boulevard, and Goodrick Road would provide local access to The casino. Alternatives B, C, and D, respectively, would provide a reduced casino development, a reduced casino development with additional retail space, and a development providing retail space only. The appendices, which are provided and covered here for the first time, address various affected environmental resources and processes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The trust transfer and subsequent casino development would provide for land uses that would improve The long-term economic condition of The Scotts Valley Pomo Indian Tribe and its members through The development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue that would take advantage of The tribe's restored trust land base. Revenues generated from The development would be used to support social and educational programs for The elderly, The poor, and younger tribal members, as well as support The development of other services over time that would serve tribal members and relocated Native Americans in The Bay area. The development would promote self-governance capability of The tribe through The highest and best use of The restored trust land base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb soils and destroy vegetation and exacerbate erosion and sedimentation of receiving flows. Increases in impermeable surface would increase runoff, including runoff of contaminants, further degrading surface water quality. Soil conditions could affect The ground stability of The area, and The development would lie within a seismically active zone. Cultural resource sites could be disturbed, though preliminary investigations have found none. user traffic added to The study area roadway system would contribute to The unacceptable operating conditions of several roadway segments and intersections. LEGAL MANDATES: California Rancheria Termination Act of 1958, as amended (P.L. 88-419) 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 06-0284D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080110, Final EIS--2,277 pages and maps; Comments and Responses--987 pages, March 20, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - California
KW  - California Rancheria Termination Act of 1958, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383459?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SCOTTS+VALLEY+BAND+OF+POMO+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+GAMING+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CITIES+OF+RICHMOND+AND+SAN+PABLO+AND+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SCOTTS+VALLEY+BAND+OF+POMO+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+GAMING+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CITIES+OF+RICHMOND+AND+SAN+PABLO+AND+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of The Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 20, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LONG DRAW RESERVOIR SPECIAL USE AUTHORIZATION, ARAPAHO AND ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FORESTS AND PAWNEE NATIONAL GRASSLAND, GRAND AND LARIMER COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - LONG DRAW RESERVOIR SPECIAL USE AUTHORIZATION, ARAPAHO AND ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FORESTS AND PAWNEE NATIONAL GRASSLAND, GRAND AND LARIMER COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 36383274; 13340-080106_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The reissuance of a special use permit (SUP) to the Water Supply and Storage Company (WSSC) for the continued occupancy and operation of the expanded portion of Long Draw Reservoir within the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest, the Pawnee National Grassland, and the Rocky Mountain National Park and Grand and Larimer counties, Colorado is proposed. The existing Long Draw Reservoir and Dam, which is the result of a 1974 enlargement of the original structure, was authorized by t he Roosevelt National Forest until 1991, when the SUP expired. In 1994, the Forest Service published an EIS proposing re-issuance of a SUP for the dam and reservoir and three other facilities in the basin. The process resulted in the decision to issue a 50-year easement for the expanded portion of the reservoir. This decision, which included a plan for releasing winter flows off-site when there were extended periods of zero stream flows below the Long Draw Reservoir, was challenged by Trout Unlimited in a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. In April 2004, the court reversed the decision of the Forest Service for violation of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The WSSC needs Long Draw Reservoir to provide water for irrigation of farmland in Larimer and Weld counties. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to damage to La Poudre Pass Creek, off-site flow mitigation, on-site flow mitigation, and safety concerns regarding operating the dam during winter months. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would continue current management through ongoing operations of the dam, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would utilize in kind methods to directly address damage from ongoing operations of the reservoir. Specifically, Alternative 2 would provide for releases of water quality enhancement flows designed to emulate the winter flows from La Poudre Pass Creek watershed without requiring release of stored water from the reservoir. Alternative 3, which has been identified as the environmentally preferable alternative, would implement off-site mitigation that would not be flow-related to address damage caused by various flows from the operations of the reservoir. Alternative 3 would maintain the current summer and winter operations of Long Draw Reservoir with no changes in releases or flows. This alternative would mitigate for 0hysical damage to the environment with a biological solution that would incorporate both the reservoir and La Poudre Pass Creek. Populations of greenback cutthroat trout would be established in the Rocky Mountain National Park and Forest in streams connected to La Poudre Pass Creek and the reservoir, which would also be included in the restoration effort. Alternative 4 would compensate for reservoir-related damages via off-site flow mitigation while maintaining the current winter and summer operations of the reservoir. Specifically, Alternative 4 would provide for flows off-site within the upper Colorado River basin to restore flows into streams currently dewatered by the Grand Ditch to restore wetlands in the Kawuneeche Valley within Rocky Mountain National Park. This alternative would require summer releases from Grand Ditch into Red Gulch and Lost Creeks; this water would then flow into wetlands in the Kawuneeche Valley. Present net value costs of alternatives 2, 3, and 4 over a 30-year horizon are estimated at $2.34 million, $1.05 million, and $1.18 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued operation of the Long Draw Reservoir would ensure the delivery of irrigation water to agricultural interests in the two affected counties, maintaining the viability of farmland and the socioeconomic health of the associated communities The preferred alternative would not improve aquatic habitats below the dam No change in the current operations of the operations of the reservoir would be necessary. Public safety would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would significantly benefit federal and state efforts toward restoration of native trout in the national park and national forest and would mitigate for damage caused by the operation of the Long Draw Reservoir. Restoration activities could result in short-term adverse impacts to river otter, boreal toad, wood frog, and leopard frog. Chemical removal of fish from the reservoir would have short-term adverse impacts on recreation and wilderness values; however, both values would be enhanced in the long-term due to restoration of native species to the restored habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080106, 164 pages, March 20, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Easements
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Safety
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Arapaho National Forest
KW  - Colorado
KW  - La Poudre Pass Creek
KW  - Pawnee National Grassland
KW  - Rocky Mountain National park
KW  - Roosevelt National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383274?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LONG+DRAW+RESERVOIR+SPECIAL+USE+AUTHORIZATION%2C+ARAPAHO+AND+ROOSEVELT+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+PAWNEE+NATIONAL+GRASSLAND%2C+GRAND+AND+LARIMER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=LONG+DRAW+RESERVOIR+SPECIAL+USE+AUTHORIZATION%2C+ARAPAHO+AND+ROOSEVELT+NATIONAL+FORESTS+AND+PAWNEE+NATIONAL+GRASSLAND%2C+GRAND+AND+LARIMER+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 20, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRUST AND GAMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CITIES OF RICHMOND AND SAN PABLO AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 8]
T2  - SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRUST AND GAMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CITIES OF RICHMOND AND SAN PABLO AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36382846; 13344-080110_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 29.87 acres of Native American land held by The Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians into federal trust administration in unincorporated Contra Costa County is proposed to provide for The development of a gaming center (casino) in The vicinity of The cities of Richmond and San Pablo. Four commercial development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred casino Alternative (Alternative A) would result in The development of a 225,00-square-foot casino complex. Project components would include a porte-cochere, main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, and administrative space. Approximately 79,320 square feet of this building space would be devoted to The main gaming hall, while The balance of The facility would include administrative space, small retail shops, food and beverage facilities, and a small gift and art shop. Approximately 3,549 parking spaces would be provided for The casino users, including spaces within a four-level parking structure. The casino would be built on land within an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. Regional access to The proposed site would be provided via Interstate 80 (I-80) and I-580. Richmond Parkway, Parr Boulevard, and Goodrick Road would provide local access to The casino. Alternatives B, C, and D, respectively, would provide a reduced casino development, a reduced casino development with additional retail space, and a development providing retail space only. The appendices, which are provided and covered here for the first time, address various affected environmental resources and processes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The trust transfer and subsequent casino development would provide for land uses that would improve The long-term economic condition of The Scotts Valley Pomo Indian Tribe and its members through The development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue that would take advantage of The tribe's restored trust land base. Revenues generated from The development would be used to support social and educational programs for The elderly, The poor, and younger tribal members, as well as support The development of other services over time that would serve tribal members and relocated Native Americans in The Bay area. The development would promote self-governance capability of The tribe through The highest and best use of The restored trust land base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb soils and destroy vegetation and exacerbate erosion and sedimentation of receiving flows. Increases in impermeable surface would increase runoff, including runoff of contaminants, further degrading surface water quality. Soil conditions could affect The ground stability of The area, and The development would lie within a seismically active zone. Cultural resource sites could be disturbed, though preliminary investigations have found none. user traffic added to The study area roadway system would contribute to The unacceptable operating conditions of several roadway segments and intersections. LEGAL MANDATES: California Rancheria Termination Act of 1958, as amended (P.L. 88-419) 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 06-0284D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080110, Final EIS--2,277 pages and maps; Comments and Responses--987 pages, March 20, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - California
KW  - California Rancheria Termination Act of 1958, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382846?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SCOTTS+VALLEY+BAND+OF+POMO+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+GAMING+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CITIES+OF+RICHMOND+AND+SAN+PABLO+AND+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SCOTTS+VALLEY+BAND+OF+POMO+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+GAMING+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CITIES+OF+RICHMOND+AND+SAN+PABLO+AND+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of The Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 20, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRUST AND GAMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CITIES OF RICHMOND AND SAN PABLO AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 8]
T2  - SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRUST AND GAMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CITIES OF RICHMOND AND SAN PABLO AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36378457; 13344-080110_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 29.87 acres of Native American land held by The Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians into federal trust administration in unincorporated Contra Costa County is proposed to provide for The development of a gaming center (casino) in The vicinity of The cities of Richmond and San Pablo. Four commercial development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred casino Alternative (Alternative A) would result in The development of a 225,00-square-foot casino complex. Project components would include a porte-cochere, main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, and administrative space. Approximately 79,320 square feet of this building space would be devoted to The main gaming hall, while The balance of The facility would include administrative space, small retail shops, food and beverage facilities, and a small gift and art shop. Approximately 3,549 parking spaces would be provided for The casino users, including spaces within a four-level parking structure. The casino would be built on land within an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. Regional access to The proposed site would be provided via Interstate 80 (I-80) and I-580. Richmond Parkway, Parr Boulevard, and Goodrick Road would provide local access to The casino. Alternatives B, C, and D, respectively, would provide a reduced casino development, a reduced casino development with additional retail space, and a development providing retail space only. The appendices, which are provided and covered here for the first time, address various affected environmental resources and processes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The trust transfer and subsequent casino development would provide for land uses that would improve The long-term economic condition of The Scotts Valley Pomo Indian Tribe and its members through The development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue that would take advantage of The tribe's restored trust land base. Revenues generated from The development would be used to support social and educational programs for The elderly, The poor, and younger tribal members, as well as support The development of other services over time that would serve tribal members and relocated Native Americans in The Bay area. The development would promote self-governance capability of The tribe through The highest and best use of The restored trust land base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb soils and destroy vegetation and exacerbate erosion and sedimentation of receiving flows. Increases in impermeable surface would increase runoff, including runoff of contaminants, further degrading surface water quality. Soil conditions could affect The ground stability of The area, and The development would lie within a seismically active zone. Cultural resource sites could be disturbed, though preliminary investigations have found none. user traffic added to The study area roadway system would contribute to The unacceptable operating conditions of several roadway segments and intersections. LEGAL MANDATES: California Rancheria Termination Act of 1958, as amended (P.L. 88-419) 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 06-0284D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080110, Final EIS--2,277 pages and maps; Comments and Responses--987 pages, March 20, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - California
KW  - California Rancheria Termination Act of 1958, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378457?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SCOTTS+VALLEY+BAND+OF+POMO+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+GAMING+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CITIES+OF+RICHMOND+AND+SAN+PABLO+AND+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SCOTTS+VALLEY+BAND+OF+POMO+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+GAMING+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CITIES+OF+RICHMOND+AND+SAN+PABLO+AND+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of The Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 20, 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.
AN  - 36404257; 13326
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 draft 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 dewatering 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 080092, 471 pages, March 12, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
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  - Wildlife Surveys
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/36404257?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-12&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 Indian Affairs, Billings, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 12, 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 2 of 2]
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  - 36383214; 13326-080092_0002
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 draft 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 dewatering 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 080092, 471 pages, March 12, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
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  - Wildlife Surveys
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/36383214?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-12&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 Indian Affairs, Billings, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 12, 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 2]
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  - 36378318; 13326-080092_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 draft 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 dewatering 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 080092, 471 pages, March 12, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
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  - Wildlife Surveys
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/36378318?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-12&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 Indian Affairs, Billings, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 12, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36413112; 13324
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 40 acres of the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribal lands is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino and hotel resort in Yuba County, California. In addition to the fee-to-trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action requests approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between Yuba County Entertainment and the Tribe (also known as Enterprise Rancheria). The proposed site of the resort lies four miles southeast of the community of Olivehurst near the intersection of Forty Mile Road and State Route 65. Under the proposed action, the 40-acre Yuba site would be placed into federal trust and the gaming management contract would be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resulting casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Several food and beverage facilities would be incorporated into the design, including a buffet, casino bars, and two restaurants. the resort would include an eight-story hotel providing 170 rooms, a pool area, an exercise room, and an arcade. Approximately 2,750 parking spaces would be provided to accommodate visitors to the resort, with 600 of the space contained in multi-level structures. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, alternatives providing for a smaller casino, non-gaming development, and a smaller casino on an alternative site. The alternative site, known as the Butte site, encompasses 40 acres located 11 miles northeast of the city of Oroville between the middle and south forks of the Feather River in unincorporated Butte County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino and hotel resort and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Agricultural land, and associated wildlife habitat, at the site would be displaced. Soils at the site are unstable, calling for special engineering measures. The northeastern corner of the site lies within a 100-year floodplain. A roadside ditch associated with the resort could displace 0.72 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Operation of the site would remove 137 acre-feet of groundwater from the regional aquifer annually, though this and withdrawals by other interests would still be far less than the annual recharge of 1,000 acre-feet. Operational emissions of reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter exceeding federal standards, and carbon monoxide emissions could violate short-term emission standards. The level of service on roads accessing the site and associated roads would decline to unacceptable levels at some intersections during peak operation hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080090, Draft EIS--871 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,117 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,991 pages, March 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36413112?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 12]
T2  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36392964; 13324-080090_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 40 acres of the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribal lands is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino and hotel resort in Yuba County, California. In addition to the fee-to-trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action requests approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between Yuba County Entertainment and the Tribe (also known as Enterprise Rancheria). The proposed site of the resort lies four miles southeast of the community of Olivehurst near the intersection of Forty Mile Road and State Route 65. Under the proposed action, the 40-acre Yuba site would be placed into federal trust and the gaming management contract would be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resulting casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Several food and beverage facilities would be incorporated into the design, including a buffet, casino bars, and two restaurants. the resort would include an eight-story hotel providing 170 rooms, a pool area, an exercise room, and an arcade. Approximately 2,750 parking spaces would be provided to accommodate visitors to the resort, with 600 of the space contained in multi-level structures. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, alternatives providing for a smaller casino, non-gaming development, and a smaller casino on an alternative site. The alternative site, known as the Butte site, encompasses 40 acres located 11 miles northeast of the city of Oroville between the middle and south forks of the Feather River in unincorporated Butte County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino and hotel resort and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Agricultural land, and associated wildlife habitat, at the site would be displaced. Soils at the site are unstable, calling for special engineering measures. The northeastern corner of the site lies within a 100-year floodplain. A roadside ditch associated with the resort could displace 0.72 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Operation of the site would remove 137 acre-feet of groundwater from the regional aquifer annually, though this and withdrawals by other interests would still be far less than the annual recharge of 1,000 acre-feet. Operational emissions of reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter exceeding federal standards, and carbon monoxide emissions could violate short-term emission standards. The level of service on roads accessing the site and associated roads would decline to unacceptable levels at some intersections during peak operation hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080090, Draft EIS--871 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,117 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,991 pages, March 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392964?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 12]
T2  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36392933; 13324-080090_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 40 acres of the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribal lands is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino and hotel resort in Yuba County, California. In addition to the fee-to-trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action requests approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between Yuba County Entertainment and the Tribe (also known as Enterprise Rancheria). The proposed site of the resort lies four miles southeast of the community of Olivehurst near the intersection of Forty Mile Road and State Route 65. Under the proposed action, the 40-acre Yuba site would be placed into federal trust and the gaming management contract would be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resulting casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Several food and beverage facilities would be incorporated into the design, including a buffet, casino bars, and two restaurants. the resort would include an eight-story hotel providing 170 rooms, a pool area, an exercise room, and an arcade. Approximately 2,750 parking spaces would be provided to accommodate visitors to the resort, with 600 of the space contained in multi-level structures. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, alternatives providing for a smaller casino, non-gaming development, and a smaller casino on an alternative site. The alternative site, known as the Butte site, encompasses 40 acres located 11 miles northeast of the city of Oroville between the middle and south forks of the Feather River in unincorporated Butte County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino and hotel resort and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Agricultural land, and associated wildlife habitat, at the site would be displaced. Soils at the site are unstable, calling for special engineering measures. The northeastern corner of the site lies within a 100-year floodplain. A roadside ditch associated with the resort could displace 0.72 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Operation of the site would remove 137 acre-feet of groundwater from the regional aquifer annually, though this and withdrawals by other interests would still be far less than the annual recharge of 1,000 acre-feet. Operational emissions of reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter exceeding federal standards, and carbon monoxide emissions could violate short-term emission standards. The level of service on roads accessing the site and associated roads would decline to unacceptable levels at some intersections during peak operation hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080090, Draft EIS--871 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,117 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,991 pages, March 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392933?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 12]
T2  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36392210; 13324-080090_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 40 acres of the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribal lands is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino and hotel resort in Yuba County, California. In addition to the fee-to-trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action requests approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between Yuba County Entertainment and the Tribe (also known as Enterprise Rancheria). The proposed site of the resort lies four miles southeast of the community of Olivehurst near the intersection of Forty Mile Road and State Route 65. Under the proposed action, the 40-acre Yuba site would be placed into federal trust and the gaming management contract would be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resulting casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Several food and beverage facilities would be incorporated into the design, including a buffet, casino bars, and two restaurants. the resort would include an eight-story hotel providing 170 rooms, a pool area, an exercise room, and an arcade. Approximately 2,750 parking spaces would be provided to accommodate visitors to the resort, with 600 of the space contained in multi-level structures. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, alternatives providing for a smaller casino, non-gaming development, and a smaller casino on an alternative site. The alternative site, known as the Butte site, encompasses 40 acres located 11 miles northeast of the city of Oroville between the middle and south forks of the Feather River in unincorporated Butte County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino and hotel resort and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Agricultural land, and associated wildlife habitat, at the site would be displaced. Soils at the site are unstable, calling for special engineering measures. The northeastern corner of the site lies within a 100-year floodplain. A roadside ditch associated with the resort could displace 0.72 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Operation of the site would remove 137 acre-feet of groundwater from the regional aquifer annually, though this and withdrawals by other interests would still be far less than the annual recharge of 1,000 acre-feet. Operational emissions of reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter exceeding federal standards, and carbon monoxide emissions could violate short-term emission standards. The level of service on roads accessing the site and associated roads would decline to unacceptable levels at some intersections during peak operation hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080090, Draft EIS--871 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,117 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,991 pages, March 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 12
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392210?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 12]
T2  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36388841; 13324-080090_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 40 acres of the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribal lands is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino and hotel resort in Yuba County, California. In addition to the fee-to-trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action requests approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between Yuba County Entertainment and the Tribe (also known as Enterprise Rancheria). The proposed site of the resort lies four miles southeast of the community of Olivehurst near the intersection of Forty Mile Road and State Route 65. Under the proposed action, the 40-acre Yuba site would be placed into federal trust and the gaming management contract would be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resulting casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Several food and beverage facilities would be incorporated into the design, including a buffet, casino bars, and two restaurants. the resort would include an eight-story hotel providing 170 rooms, a pool area, an exercise room, and an arcade. Approximately 2,750 parking spaces would be provided to accommodate visitors to the resort, with 600 of the space contained in multi-level structures. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, alternatives providing for a smaller casino, non-gaming development, and a smaller casino on an alternative site. The alternative site, known as the Butte site, encompasses 40 acres located 11 miles northeast of the city of Oroville between the middle and south forks of the Feather River in unincorporated Butte County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino and hotel resort and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Agricultural land, and associated wildlife habitat, at the site would be displaced. Soils at the site are unstable, calling for special engineering measures. The northeastern corner of the site lies within a 100-year floodplain. A roadside ditch associated with the resort could displace 0.72 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Operation of the site would remove 137 acre-feet of groundwater from the regional aquifer annually, though this and withdrawals by other interests would still be far less than the annual recharge of 1,000 acre-feet. Operational emissions of reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter exceeding federal standards, and carbon monoxide emissions could violate short-term emission standards. The level of service on roads accessing the site and associated roads would decline to unacceptable levels at some intersections during peak operation hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080090, Draft EIS--871 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,117 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,991 pages, March 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388841?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 12]
T2  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36388657; 13324-080090_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 40 acres of the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribal lands is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino and hotel resort in Yuba County, California. In addition to the fee-to-trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action requests approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between Yuba County Entertainment and the Tribe (also known as Enterprise Rancheria). The proposed site of the resort lies four miles southeast of the community of Olivehurst near the intersection of Forty Mile Road and State Route 65. Under the proposed action, the 40-acre Yuba site would be placed into federal trust and the gaming management contract would be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resulting casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Several food and beverage facilities would be incorporated into the design, including a buffet, casino bars, and two restaurants. the resort would include an eight-story hotel providing 170 rooms, a pool area, an exercise room, and an arcade. Approximately 2,750 parking spaces would be provided to accommodate visitors to the resort, with 600 of the space contained in multi-level structures. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, alternatives providing for a smaller casino, non-gaming development, and a smaller casino on an alternative site. The alternative site, known as the Butte site, encompasses 40 acres located 11 miles northeast of the city of Oroville between the middle and south forks of the Feather River in unincorporated Butte County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino and hotel resort and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Agricultural land, and associated wildlife habitat, at the site would be displaced. Soils at the site are unstable, calling for special engineering measures. The northeastern corner of the site lies within a 100-year floodplain. A roadside ditch associated with the resort could displace 0.72 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Operation of the site would remove 137 acre-feet of groundwater from the regional aquifer annually, though this and withdrawals by other interests would still be far less than the annual recharge of 1,000 acre-feet. Operational emissions of reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter exceeding federal standards, and carbon monoxide emissions could violate short-term emission standards. The level of service on roads accessing the site and associated roads would decline to unacceptable levels at some intersections during peak operation hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080090, Draft EIS--871 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,117 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,991 pages, March 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388657?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 12]
T2  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36387173; 13324-080090_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 40 acres of the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribal lands is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino and hotel resort in Yuba County, California. In addition to the fee-to-trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action requests approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between Yuba County Entertainment and the Tribe (also known as Enterprise Rancheria). The proposed site of the resort lies four miles southeast of the community of Olivehurst near the intersection of Forty Mile Road and State Route 65. Under the proposed action, the 40-acre Yuba site would be placed into federal trust and the gaming management contract would be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resulting casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Several food and beverage facilities would be incorporated into the design, including a buffet, casino bars, and two restaurants. the resort would include an eight-story hotel providing 170 rooms, a pool area, an exercise room, and an arcade. Approximately 2,750 parking spaces would be provided to accommodate visitors to the resort, with 600 of the space contained in multi-level structures. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, alternatives providing for a smaller casino, non-gaming development, and a smaller casino on an alternative site. The alternative site, known as the Butte site, encompasses 40 acres located 11 miles northeast of the city of Oroville between the middle and south forks of the Feather River in unincorporated Butte County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino and hotel resort and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Agricultural land, and associated wildlife habitat, at the site would be displaced. Soils at the site are unstable, calling for special engineering measures. The northeastern corner of the site lies within a 100-year floodplain. A roadside ditch associated with the resort could displace 0.72 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Operation of the site would remove 137 acre-feet of groundwater from the regional aquifer annually, though this and withdrawals by other interests would still be far less than the annual recharge of 1,000 acre-feet. Operational emissions of reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter exceeding federal standards, and carbon monoxide emissions could violate short-term emission standards. The level of service on roads accessing the site and associated roads would decline to unacceptable levels at some intersections during peak operation hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080090, Draft EIS--871 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,117 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,991 pages, March 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36387173?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 12]
T2  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36384115; 13324-080090_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 40 acres of the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribal lands is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino and hotel resort in Yuba County, California. In addition to the fee-to-trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action requests approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between Yuba County Entertainment and the Tribe (also known as Enterprise Rancheria). The proposed site of the resort lies four miles southeast of the community of Olivehurst near the intersection of Forty Mile Road and State Route 65. Under the proposed action, the 40-acre Yuba site would be placed into federal trust and the gaming management contract would be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resulting casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Several food and beverage facilities would be incorporated into the design, including a buffet, casino bars, and two restaurants. the resort would include an eight-story hotel providing 170 rooms, a pool area, an exercise room, and an arcade. Approximately 2,750 parking spaces would be provided to accommodate visitors to the resort, with 600 of the space contained in multi-level structures. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, alternatives providing for a smaller casino, non-gaming development, and a smaller casino on an alternative site. The alternative site, known as the Butte site, encompasses 40 acres located 11 miles northeast of the city of Oroville between the middle and south forks of the Feather River in unincorporated Butte County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino and hotel resort and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Agricultural land, and associated wildlife habitat, at the site would be displaced. Soils at the site are unstable, calling for special engineering measures. The northeastern corner of the site lies within a 100-year floodplain. A roadside ditch associated with the resort could displace 0.72 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Operation of the site would remove 137 acre-feet of groundwater from the regional aquifer annually, though this and withdrawals by other interests would still be far less than the annual recharge of 1,000 acre-feet. Operational emissions of reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter exceeding federal standards, and carbon monoxide emissions could violate short-term emission standards. The level of service on roads accessing the site and associated roads would decline to unacceptable levels at some intersections during peak operation hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080090, Draft EIS--871 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,117 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,991 pages, March 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 9
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384115?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080090/080090_0010.txt of 12]
T2  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36383719; 13324-080090_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 40 acres of the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribal lands is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino and hotel resort in Yuba County, California. In addition to the fee-to-trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action requests approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between Yuba County Entertainment and the Tribe (also known as Enterprise Rancheria). The proposed site of the resort lies four miles southeast of the community of Olivehurst near the intersection of Forty Mile Road and State Route 65. Under the proposed action, the 40-acre Yuba site would be placed into federal trust and the gaming management contract would be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resulting casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Several food and beverage facilities would be incorporated into the design, including a buffet, casino bars, and two restaurants. the resort would include an eight-story hotel providing 170 rooms, a pool area, an exercise room, and an arcade. Approximately 2,750 parking spaces would be provided to accommodate visitors to the resort, with 600 of the space contained in multi-level structures. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, alternatives providing for a smaller casino, non-gaming development, and a smaller casino on an alternative site. The alternative site, known as the Butte site, encompasses 40 acres located 11 miles northeast of the city of Oroville between the middle and south forks of the Feather River in unincorporated Butte County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino and hotel resort and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Agricultural land, and associated wildlife habitat, at the site would be displaced. Soils at the site are unstable, calling for special engineering measures. The northeastern corner of the site lies within a 100-year floodplain. A roadside ditch associated with the resort could displace 0.72 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Operation of the site would remove 137 acre-feet of groundwater from the regional aquifer annually, though this and withdrawals by other interests would still be far less than the annual recharge of 1,000 acre-feet. Operational emissions of reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter exceeding federal standards, and carbon monoxide emissions could violate short-term emission standards. The level of service on roads accessing the site and associated roads would decline to unacceptable levels at some intersections during peak operation hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080090, Draft EIS--871 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,117 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,991 pages, March 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080090/080090_0010.txt
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383719?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 12]
T2  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36383125; 13324-080090_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 40 acres of the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribal lands is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino and hotel resort in Yuba County, California. In addition to the fee-to-trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action requests approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between Yuba County Entertainment and the Tribe (also known as Enterprise Rancheria). The proposed site of the resort lies four miles southeast of the community of Olivehurst near the intersection of Forty Mile Road and State Route 65. Under the proposed action, the 40-acre Yuba site would be placed into federal trust and the gaming management contract would be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resulting casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Several food and beverage facilities would be incorporated into the design, including a buffet, casino bars, and two restaurants. the resort would include an eight-story hotel providing 170 rooms, a pool area, an exercise room, and an arcade. Approximately 2,750 parking spaces would be provided to accommodate visitors to the resort, with 600 of the space contained in multi-level structures. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, alternatives providing for a smaller casino, non-gaming development, and a smaller casino on an alternative site. The alternative site, known as the Butte site, encompasses 40 acres located 11 miles northeast of the city of Oroville between the middle and south forks of the Feather River in unincorporated Butte County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino and hotel resort and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Agricultural land, and associated wildlife habitat, at the site would be displaced. Soils at the site are unstable, calling for special engineering measures. The northeastern corner of the site lies within a 100-year floodplain. A roadside ditch associated with the resort could displace 0.72 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Operation of the site would remove 137 acre-feet of groundwater from the regional aquifer annually, though this and withdrawals by other interests would still be far less than the annual recharge of 1,000 acre-feet. Operational emissions of reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter exceeding federal standards, and carbon monoxide emissions could violate short-term emission standards. The level of service on roads accessing the site and associated roads would decline to unacceptable levels at some intersections during peak operation hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080090, Draft EIS--871 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,117 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,991 pages, March 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 8
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383125?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 12]
T2  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36381393; 13324-080090_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 40 acres of the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribal lands is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino and hotel resort in Yuba County, California. In addition to the fee-to-trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action requests approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between Yuba County Entertainment and the Tribe (also known as Enterprise Rancheria). The proposed site of the resort lies four miles southeast of the community of Olivehurst near the intersection of Forty Mile Road and State Route 65. Under the proposed action, the 40-acre Yuba site would be placed into federal trust and the gaming management contract would be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resulting casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Several food and beverage facilities would be incorporated into the design, including a buffet, casino bars, and two restaurants. the resort would include an eight-story hotel providing 170 rooms, a pool area, an exercise room, and an arcade. Approximately 2,750 parking spaces would be provided to accommodate visitors to the resort, with 600 of the space contained in multi-level structures. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, alternatives providing for a smaller casino, non-gaming development, and a smaller casino on an alternative site. The alternative site, known as the Butte site, encompasses 40 acres located 11 miles northeast of the city of Oroville between the middle and south forks of the Feather River in unincorporated Butte County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino and hotel resort and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Agricultural land, and associated wildlife habitat, at the site would be displaced. Soils at the site are unstable, calling for special engineering measures. The northeastern corner of the site lies within a 100-year floodplain. A roadside ditch associated with the resort could displace 0.72 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Operation of the site would remove 137 acre-feet of groundwater from the regional aquifer annually, though this and withdrawals by other interests would still be far less than the annual recharge of 1,000 acre-feet. Operational emissions of reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter exceeding federal standards, and carbon monoxide emissions could violate short-term emission standards. The level of service on roads accessing the site and associated roads would decline to unacceptable levels at some intersections during peak operation hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080090, Draft EIS--871 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,117 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,991 pages, March 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381393?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 12]
T2  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36381046; 13324-080090_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 40 acres of the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribal lands is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino and hotel resort in Yuba County, California. In addition to the fee-to-trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action requests approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between Yuba County Entertainment and the Tribe (also known as Enterprise Rancheria). The proposed site of the resort lies four miles southeast of the community of Olivehurst near the intersection of Forty Mile Road and State Route 65. Under the proposed action, the 40-acre Yuba site would be placed into federal trust and the gaming management contract would be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resulting casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Several food and beverage facilities would be incorporated into the design, including a buffet, casino bars, and two restaurants. the resort would include an eight-story hotel providing 170 rooms, a pool area, an exercise room, and an arcade. Approximately 2,750 parking spaces would be provided to accommodate visitors to the resort, with 600 of the space contained in multi-level structures. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, alternatives providing for a smaller casino, non-gaming development, and a smaller casino on an alternative site. The alternative site, known as the Butte site, encompasses 40 acres located 11 miles northeast of the city of Oroville between the middle and south forks of the Feather River in unincorporated Butte County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino and hotel resort and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Agricultural land, and associated wildlife habitat, at the site would be displaced. Soils at the site are unstable, calling for special engineering measures. The northeastern corner of the site lies within a 100-year floodplain. A roadside ditch associated with the resort could displace 0.72 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Operation of the site would remove 137 acre-feet of groundwater from the regional aquifer annually, though this and withdrawals by other interests would still be far less than the annual recharge of 1,000 acre-feet. Operational emissions of reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter exceeding federal standards, and carbon monoxide emissions could violate short-term emission standards. The level of service on roads accessing the site and associated roads would decline to unacceptable levels at some intersections during peak operation hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080090, Draft EIS--871 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,117 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,991 pages, March 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 11
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381046?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 12]
T2  - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36380009; 13324-080090_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 40 acres of the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribal lands is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino and hotel resort in Yuba County, California. In addition to the fee-to-trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action requests approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between Yuba County Entertainment and the Tribe (also known as Enterprise Rancheria). The proposed site of the resort lies four miles southeast of the community of Olivehurst near the intersection of Forty Mile Road and State Route 65. Under the proposed action, the 40-acre Yuba site would be placed into federal trust and the gaming management contract would be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resulting casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Several food and beverage facilities would be incorporated into the design, including a buffet, casino bars, and two restaurants. the resort would include an eight-story hotel providing 170 rooms, a pool area, an exercise room, and an arcade. Approximately 2,750 parking spaces would be provided to accommodate visitors to the resort, with 600 of the space contained in multi-level structures. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, alternatives providing for a smaller casino, non-gaming development, and a smaller casino on an alternative site. The alternative site, known as the Butte site, encompasses 40 acres located 11 miles northeast of the city of Oroville between the middle and south forks of the Feather River in unincorporated Butte County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino and hotel resort and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Agricultural land, and associated wildlife habitat, at the site would be displaced. Soils at the site are unstable, calling for special engineering measures. The northeastern corner of the site lies within a 100-year floodplain. A roadside ditch associated with the resort could displace 0.72 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Operation of the site would remove 137 acre-feet of groundwater from the regional aquifer annually, though this and withdrawals by other interests would still be far less than the annual recharge of 1,000 acre-feet. Operational emissions of reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter exceeding federal standards, and carbon monoxide emissions could violate short-term emission standards. The level of service on roads accessing the site and associated roads would decline to unacceptable levels at some intersections during peak operation hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080090, Draft EIS--871 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,117 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,991 pages, March 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380009?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, CLALLAM, GRAYS HARBOR, JEFFERSON, AND MASON COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, CLALLAM, GRAYS HARBOR, JEFFERSON, AND MASON COUNTIES, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 873131452; 14456-5_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for Olympic National Park of Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, and Mason counties, Washington is proposed to provide for management of park resources for the next 15 to 20 years. The last comprehensive management plan for the 922,651-acre park was completed in 1976 and must be revised to address changes in visitor use patterns, recreational preferences, and park boundaries. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize natural and cultural resource protection. The part would be managed as a large ecosystem preserve emphasizing wilderness management for resource conservation and protection, with a reduced number of facilities to support visitation. Previously disturbed areas would undergo restoration. Alternative C would emphasize visitor opportunities. Park resources would be important natural, cultural, and recreational attractions for increased regional tourism through dispersed visitation, increased partnerships, improved park and partnership facilities, and increased year-found access. Increases in front country visitation and improved access to the wilderness would be accommodated. Natural resources in undeveloped areas would be protected through management actions and resource education programs. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative and represents a combination of the other alternatives, would emphasize both the protection of resources and the improvement of visitor experiences. This would be accomplished by accommodating diverse visitor use, providing sustainable access on existing roads, improving mass transit opportunities, and concentrating improved educational and recreational opportunities on the developed park edges. Front country visitation and wilderness use would be managed for resource protection and improved visitor experiences. Parkwide facilities and infrastructure would generally remain at current levels. Alternative D would include boundary adjustments in adjacent lands in the Lake Crescent, Ozette, and Queets areas. Under all action alternatives, the comprehensive maintenance, protection, and preservation measures issued by the Department of the Interior would be employed for structures listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance the protection of natural and cultural resources with improvement of visitor experiences. The diversity of visitor experiences would increase significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Wilderness values would be degraded in some areas due to the proximity of visitor facilities and increased visitation. Archaeological resources would also suffer somewhat more than at present due to increased visitation. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and Olympic National Park Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 1241). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0388D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080085, Volume 1--496 pages and maps, Volume 2--479 pages, March 7, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Olympia National Park
KW  - Washington
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Olympic National Park Act of 1938, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131452?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CLALLAM%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+AND+MASON+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CLALLAM%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+AND+MASON+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 7, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY EXPANSION/MODERNIZATION PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 5]
T2  - UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY EXPANSION/MODERNIZATION PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36389153; 13323-080089_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The modernization and expansion of the United States Gypsum Company (USG) gypsum processing and wallboard manufacturing facility and the associated Plaster City Quarry in Imperial County, California are proposed. The quarry is located in the western portion of the county at the northwest end of the Fish Creek Mountains, east of Split Mountain and southwest of the Fish Creek Wash. Imperial County lies within the Colorado Desert. The quarry occupies 1,640 acres of private lands, 380 acres of claims on federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and 28 acres of mill facility sites. Water for plant operations is delivered via a worn eight-inch pipeline extending from a well field eight miles west of Plaster City in the Ocotillo-Coyote Wells Groundwater Basin. USG produces wallboard and related gypsum products at the Plaster City Plant, located 18 miles west of the city of El Centro. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to hydrology and water quality, air quality, traffic circulation, biologic resources, geologic resources, paleontological resources, public health and safety, acoustics, visual aesthetics, cultural sites, hazardous materials, and land use. USG's plan would incorporate a reclamation program designed to minimize erosion, re-establish vegetation and wildlife habitat, and mitigate the aesthetic impacts resulting from mining. In addition to the USG's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two alternatives regarding use of water from the Imperial Irrigation District. The proposed action would include replacement of the worn eight-inch pipeline would be replaced by a 10-inch line; installation of a 14.4 megawatt cogeneration unit to provide electrical power for the plant and deliver waste heat to a kiln used to dry wallboard; provision of an off-specification material recycling system designed to chip up out-of-specification wallboard from an inert material storage area and feed it back into the plant production process along with raw gypsum rock; and drilling of a new production water well and pipeline for on-site use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the facilities and the quarry would help maintain a viable mining industry in the region and contribute to the nation's capacity to produce domestic mineral resource products. The new facilities and expanded quarry wuold allow USG to maximize the use of known gypsum resources, expand production and employment opportunities, and maximize the return on the company's capital investment. The expanded facilities would add 85 jobs to the USG employment rolls. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Quarry and plant expansion and replacement of the water pipeline would destroy desert vegetation, remove soils, and result in the loss of the associated wildlife habitat. Slope stability would be affected in some areas of excavation. Increased pumping from the well field could result in drawdown of the regional aquifer and degrade water quality in the aquifer. Increased pumping at the quarry site could result in vertical migration of saline water into the groundwater table. Operations at the quarry and the plant could result in emissions of particulate matter that would exceed government air quality standards. Exhaust emissions could also exceed thresholds of significance. Visual aesthetics associated with desert land, which could be considered for wilderness designation, in the vicinity of the quarry would be significantly degraded, and noise levels would increase. Plant employees would be exposed to hazardous materials and the risk of explosions. Cultural resources, including historic, prehistoric, and ethnic values, could be disturbed or destroyed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0318D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080089, Final EIS--721 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, March 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Manufacturing
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Noise
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Quarries
KW  - Recycling
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
KW  - National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389153?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UNITED+STATES+GYPSUM+COMPANY+EXPANSION%2FMODERNIZATION+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UNITED+STATES+GYPSUM+COMPANY+EXPANSION%2FMODERNIZATION+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY EXPANSION/MODERNIZATION PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 5]
T2  - UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY EXPANSION/MODERNIZATION PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36387983; 13323-080089_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The modernization and expansion of the United States Gypsum Company (USG) gypsum processing and wallboard manufacturing facility and the associated Plaster City Quarry in Imperial County, California are proposed. The quarry is located in the western portion of the county at the northwest end of the Fish Creek Mountains, east of Split Mountain and southwest of the Fish Creek Wash. Imperial County lies within the Colorado Desert. The quarry occupies 1,640 acres of private lands, 380 acres of claims on federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and 28 acres of mill facility sites. Water for plant operations is delivered via a worn eight-inch pipeline extending from a well field eight miles west of Plaster City in the Ocotillo-Coyote Wells Groundwater Basin. USG produces wallboard and related gypsum products at the Plaster City Plant, located 18 miles west of the city of El Centro. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to hydrology and water quality, air quality, traffic circulation, biologic resources, geologic resources, paleontological resources, public health and safety, acoustics, visual aesthetics, cultural sites, hazardous materials, and land use. USG's plan would incorporate a reclamation program designed to minimize erosion, re-establish vegetation and wildlife habitat, and mitigate the aesthetic impacts resulting from mining. In addition to the USG's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two alternatives regarding use of water from the Imperial Irrigation District. The proposed action would include replacement of the worn eight-inch pipeline would be replaced by a 10-inch line; installation of a 14.4 megawatt cogeneration unit to provide electrical power for the plant and deliver waste heat to a kiln used to dry wallboard; provision of an off-specification material recycling system designed to chip up out-of-specification wallboard from an inert material storage area and feed it back into the plant production process along with raw gypsum rock; and drilling of a new production water well and pipeline for on-site use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the facilities and the quarry would help maintain a viable mining industry in the region and contribute to the nation's capacity to produce domestic mineral resource products. The new facilities and expanded quarry wuold allow USG to maximize the use of known gypsum resources, expand production and employment opportunities, and maximize the return on the company's capital investment. The expanded facilities would add 85 jobs to the USG employment rolls. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Quarry and plant expansion and replacement of the water pipeline would destroy desert vegetation, remove soils, and result in the loss of the associated wildlife habitat. Slope stability would be affected in some areas of excavation. Increased pumping from the well field could result in drawdown of the regional aquifer and degrade water quality in the aquifer. Increased pumping at the quarry site could result in vertical migration of saline water into the groundwater table. Operations at the quarry and the plant could result in emissions of particulate matter that would exceed government air quality standards. Exhaust emissions could also exceed thresholds of significance. Visual aesthetics associated with desert land, which could be considered for wilderness designation, in the vicinity of the quarry would be significantly degraded, and noise levels would increase. Plant employees would be exposed to hazardous materials and the risk of explosions. Cultural resources, including historic, prehistoric, and ethnic values, could be disturbed or destroyed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0318D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080089, Final EIS--721 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, March 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Manufacturing
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Noise
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Quarries
KW  - Recycling
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
KW  - National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36387983?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UNITED+STATES+GYPSUM+COMPANY+EXPANSION%2FMODERNIZATION+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UNITED+STATES+GYPSUM+COMPANY+EXPANSION%2FMODERNIZATION+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY EXPANSION/MODERNIZATION PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 5]
T2  - UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY EXPANSION/MODERNIZATION PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36387115; 13323-080089_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The modernization and expansion of the United States Gypsum Company (USG) gypsum processing and wallboard manufacturing facility and the associated Plaster City Quarry in Imperial County, California are proposed. The quarry is located in the western portion of the county at the northwest end of the Fish Creek Mountains, east of Split Mountain and southwest of the Fish Creek Wash. Imperial County lies within the Colorado Desert. The quarry occupies 1,640 acres of private lands, 380 acres of claims on federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and 28 acres of mill facility sites. Water for plant operations is delivered via a worn eight-inch pipeline extending from a well field eight miles west of Plaster City in the Ocotillo-Coyote Wells Groundwater Basin. USG produces wallboard and related gypsum products at the Plaster City Plant, located 18 miles west of the city of El Centro. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to hydrology and water quality, air quality, traffic circulation, biologic resources, geologic resources, paleontological resources, public health and safety, acoustics, visual aesthetics, cultural sites, hazardous materials, and land use. USG's plan would incorporate a reclamation program designed to minimize erosion, re-establish vegetation and wildlife habitat, and mitigate the aesthetic impacts resulting from mining. In addition to the USG's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two alternatives regarding use of water from the Imperial Irrigation District. The proposed action would include replacement of the worn eight-inch pipeline would be replaced by a 10-inch line; installation of a 14.4 megawatt cogeneration unit to provide electrical power for the plant and deliver waste heat to a kiln used to dry wallboard; provision of an off-specification material recycling system designed to chip up out-of-specification wallboard from an inert material storage area and feed it back into the plant production process along with raw gypsum rock; and drilling of a new production water well and pipeline for on-site use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the facilities and the quarry would help maintain a viable mining industry in the region and contribute to the nation's capacity to produce domestic mineral resource products. The new facilities and expanded quarry wuold allow USG to maximize the use of known gypsum resources, expand production and employment opportunities, and maximize the return on the company's capital investment. The expanded facilities would add 85 jobs to the USG employment rolls. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Quarry and plant expansion and replacement of the water pipeline would destroy desert vegetation, remove soils, and result in the loss of the associated wildlife habitat. Slope stability would be affected in some areas of excavation. Increased pumping from the well field could result in drawdown of the regional aquifer and degrade water quality in the aquifer. Increased pumping at the quarry site could result in vertical migration of saline water into the groundwater table. Operations at the quarry and the plant could result in emissions of particulate matter that would exceed government air quality standards. Exhaust emissions could also exceed thresholds of significance. Visual aesthetics associated with desert land, which could be considered for wilderness designation, in the vicinity of the quarry would be significantly degraded, and noise levels would increase. Plant employees would be exposed to hazardous materials and the risk of explosions. Cultural resources, including historic, prehistoric, and ethnic values, could be disturbed or destroyed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0318D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080089, Final EIS--721 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, March 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Manufacturing
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Noise
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Quarries
KW  - Recycling
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
KW  - National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36387115?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UNITED+STATES+GYPSUM+COMPANY+EXPANSION%2FMODERNIZATION+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UNITED+STATES+GYPSUM+COMPANY+EXPANSION%2FMODERNIZATION+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY EXPANSION/MODERNIZATION PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 5]
T2  - UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY EXPANSION/MODERNIZATION PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36381330; 13323-080089_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The modernization and expansion of the United States Gypsum Company (USG) gypsum processing and wallboard manufacturing facility and the associated Plaster City Quarry in Imperial County, California are proposed. The quarry is located in the western portion of the county at the northwest end of the Fish Creek Mountains, east of Split Mountain and southwest of the Fish Creek Wash. Imperial County lies within the Colorado Desert. The quarry occupies 1,640 acres of private lands, 380 acres of claims on federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and 28 acres of mill facility sites. Water for plant operations is delivered via a worn eight-inch pipeline extending from a well field eight miles west of Plaster City in the Ocotillo-Coyote Wells Groundwater Basin. USG produces wallboard and related gypsum products at the Plaster City Plant, located 18 miles west of the city of El Centro. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to hydrology and water quality, air quality, traffic circulation, biologic resources, geologic resources, paleontological resources, public health and safety, acoustics, visual aesthetics, cultural sites, hazardous materials, and land use. USG's plan would incorporate a reclamation program designed to minimize erosion, re-establish vegetation and wildlife habitat, and mitigate the aesthetic impacts resulting from mining. In addition to the USG's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two alternatives regarding use of water from the Imperial Irrigation District. The proposed action would include replacement of the worn eight-inch pipeline would be replaced by a 10-inch line; installation of a 14.4 megawatt cogeneration unit to provide electrical power for the plant and deliver waste heat to a kiln used to dry wallboard; provision of an off-specification material recycling system designed to chip up out-of-specification wallboard from an inert material storage area and feed it back into the plant production process along with raw gypsum rock; and drilling of a new production water well and pipeline for on-site use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the facilities and the quarry would help maintain a viable mining industry in the region and contribute to the nation's capacity to produce domestic mineral resource products. The new facilities and expanded quarry wuold allow USG to maximize the use of known gypsum resources, expand production and employment opportunities, and maximize the return on the company's capital investment. The expanded facilities would add 85 jobs to the USG employment rolls. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Quarry and plant expansion and replacement of the water pipeline would destroy desert vegetation, remove soils, and result in the loss of the associated wildlife habitat. Slope stability would be affected in some areas of excavation. Increased pumping from the well field could result in drawdown of the regional aquifer and degrade water quality in the aquifer. Increased pumping at the quarry site could result in vertical migration of saline water into the groundwater table. Operations at the quarry and the plant could result in emissions of particulate matter that would exceed government air quality standards. Exhaust emissions could also exceed thresholds of significance. Visual aesthetics associated with desert land, which could be considered for wilderness designation, in the vicinity of the quarry would be significantly degraded, and noise levels would increase. Plant employees would be exposed to hazardous materials and the risk of explosions. Cultural resources, including historic, prehistoric, and ethnic values, could be disturbed or destroyed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0318D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080089, Final EIS--721 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, March 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Manufacturing
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Noise
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Quarries
KW  - Recycling
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
KW  - National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381330?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UNITED+STATES+GYPSUM+COMPANY+EXPANSION%2FMODERNIZATION+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UNITED+STATES+GYPSUM+COMPANY+EXPANSION%2FMODERNIZATION+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY EXPANSION/MODERNIZATION PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 5]
T2  - UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY EXPANSION/MODERNIZATION PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36374476; 13323-080089_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The modernization and expansion of the United States Gypsum Company (USG) gypsum processing and wallboard manufacturing facility and the associated Plaster City Quarry in Imperial County, California are proposed. The quarry is located in the western portion of the county at the northwest end of the Fish Creek Mountains, east of Split Mountain and southwest of the Fish Creek Wash. Imperial County lies within the Colorado Desert. The quarry occupies 1,640 acres of private lands, 380 acres of claims on federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and 28 acres of mill facility sites. Water for plant operations is delivered via a worn eight-inch pipeline extending from a well field eight miles west of Plaster City in the Ocotillo-Coyote Wells Groundwater Basin. USG produces wallboard and related gypsum products at the Plaster City Plant, located 18 miles west of the city of El Centro. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to hydrology and water quality, air quality, traffic circulation, biologic resources, geologic resources, paleontological resources, public health and safety, acoustics, visual aesthetics, cultural sites, hazardous materials, and land use. USG's plan would incorporate a reclamation program designed to minimize erosion, re-establish vegetation and wildlife habitat, and mitigate the aesthetic impacts resulting from mining. In addition to the USG's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two alternatives regarding use of water from the Imperial Irrigation District. The proposed action would include replacement of the worn eight-inch pipeline would be replaced by a 10-inch line; installation of a 14.4 megawatt cogeneration unit to provide electrical power for the plant and deliver waste heat to a kiln used to dry wallboard; provision of an off-specification material recycling system designed to chip up out-of-specification wallboard from an inert material storage area and feed it back into the plant production process along with raw gypsum rock; and drilling of a new production water well and pipeline for on-site use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the facilities and the quarry would help maintain a viable mining industry in the region and contribute to the nation's capacity to produce domestic mineral resource products. The new facilities and expanded quarry wuold allow USG to maximize the use of known gypsum resources, expand production and employment opportunities, and maximize the return on the company's capital investment. The expanded facilities would add 85 jobs to the USG employment rolls. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Quarry and plant expansion and replacement of the water pipeline would destroy desert vegetation, remove soils, and result in the loss of the associated wildlife habitat. Slope stability would be affected in some areas of excavation. Increased pumping from the well field could result in drawdown of the regional aquifer and degrade water quality in the aquifer. Increased pumping at the quarry site could result in vertical migration of saline water into the groundwater table. Operations at the quarry and the plant could result in emissions of particulate matter that would exceed government air quality standards. Exhaust emissions could also exceed thresholds of significance. Visual aesthetics associated with desert land, which could be considered for wilderness designation, in the vicinity of the quarry would be significantly degraded, and noise levels would increase. Plant employees would be exposed to hazardous materials and the risk of explosions. Cultural resources, including historic, prehistoric, and ethnic values, could be disturbed or destroyed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0318D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080089, Final EIS--721 pages and maps, Appendices--455 pages, March 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Manufacturing
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Noise
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Quarries
KW  - Recycling
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
KW  - National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374476?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-03-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UNITED+STATES+GYPSUM+COMPANY+EXPANSION%2FMODERNIZATION+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UNITED+STATES+GYPSUM+COMPANY+EXPANSION%2FMODERNIZATION+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - AMERICAN BASIN FISH SCREEN AND HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - AMERICAN BASIN FISH SCREEN AND HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 873131258; 14428-9_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the American Basin Fish Screen (ABFS) and Habitat Improvement Project in Sutter and Sacramento counties, California are proposed by the Natomas Central Mutual Water Company (Natomas Mutual). The project must be authorized by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of Fish and Game, which would also provide funding under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act's Restoration Fund and the Bay-Delta Authority's Ecosystem Restoration Program, respectively. The ABFS and related habitat improvement measures would result in modification of Natomas Mutual's water diversion and distribution system adjacent to the Sacramento River and Natomas Cross Canal. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers two action alternatives and the No Action Alternative. Specifically, the proposed action would include construction and operation of one or two positive-barrier fish screen diversion facilities; consolidation of five existing water pumping plants on the Sacramento River and Natomas Cross Canal; decommissioning and removal of the Verona Diversion Dam and associated lift pumps; removal of five pumping plants and one small private diversion; and modification of the Natomas Mutual distribution canal system. State-of-the-art fish screens would be added to the new diversions. The proposed action would be implemented in phases. Phase I would involve the construction of the Sankey Diversion, the Sankey Canal, and Sankey Drain as well as associated improvements. Phase II would involve the construction of the Elkhorn Diversion and the Elkhorn Canal. Phase III would involve regrading the Riverside Canal and making associated improvements to the internal conveyance system as required to route flows from the Sankey Diversion. Phases II and III would be implemented only if funding became available. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would avoid or minimize potentially adverse effects to fish, particularly juvenile anadromous species, due to water diversions by Natomas Mutual and other small pumps operated by individual landowners for diversion of water into the Natomas Basin; ensure the reliability of Natomas Mutual's water diversion and distribution facilities for beneficial uses of its water supply within its service area; and maintain important habitat within the Natomas Basin created by the operation of Natomas Mutual's water distribution facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project could result in the disturbance of nesting habitat and permanent displacement of 9.5 acres of foraging habitat for the federally protected Swainson's hawk. Other protected species that could be affected by loss of habitat and disturbance of normal behaviors would include northwestern pond turtle, cliff swallow, and elderberrry longhorn beetle. The project would displace 1.3 acres of shaded riverine habitat, wetland habitat below the ordinary high-water mark of the Sacramento River, removal of 295 mature trees. Grading of the Elkhorn Canal could degrade its eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction and operation of the Natomas Mutual facilities would result increased light and glare in an area currently largely unaffected by such visual intrusion. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0223D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080299, Final EIS--51 pages, February 27, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0218F
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131258?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+BASIN+FISH+SCREEN+AND+HABITAT+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+BASIN+FISH+SCREEN+AND+HABITAT+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 27, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - AMERICAN BASIN FISH SCREEN AND HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36413423; 13308
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the American Basin Fish Screen (ABFS) and Habitat Improvement Project in Sutter and Sacramento counties, California are proposed by the Natomas Central Mutual Water Company (Natomas Mutual). The project must be authorized by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of Fish and Game, which would also provide funding under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act's Restoration Fund and the Bay-Delta Authority's Ecosystem Restoration Program, respectively. The ABFS and related habitat improvement measures would result in modification of Natomas Mutual's water diversion and distribution system adjacent to the Sacramento River and Natomas Cross Canal. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers two action alternatives and the No Action Alternative. Specifically, the proposed action would include construction and operation of one or two positive-barrier fish screen diversion facilities; consolidation of five existing water pumping plants on the Sacramento River and Natomas Cross Canal; decommissioning and removal of the Verona Diversion Dam and associated lift pumps; removal of five pumping plants and one small private diversion; and modification of the Natomas Mutual distribution canal system. State-of-the-art fish screens would be added to the new diversions. The proposed action would be implemented in phases. Phase I would involve the construction of the Sankey Diversion, the Sankey Canal, and Sankey Drain as well as associated improvements. Phase II would involve the construction of the Elkhorn Diversion and the Elkhorn Canal. Phase III would involve regrading the Riverside Canal and making associated improvements to the internal conveyance system as required to route flows from the Sankey Diversion. Phases II and III would be implemented only if funding became available. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would avoid or minimize potentially adverse effects to fish, particularly juvenile anadromous species, due to water diversions by Natomas Mutual and other small pumps operated by individual landowners for diversion of water into the Natomas Basin; ensure the reliability of Natomas Mutual's water diversion and distribution facilities for beneficial uses of its water supply within its service area; and maintain important habitat within the Natomas Basin created by the operation of Natomas Mutual's water distribution facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project could result in the disturbance of nesting habitat and permanent displacement of 9.5 acres of foraging habitat for the federally protected Swainson's hawk. Other protected species that could be affected by loss of habitat and disturbance of normal behaviors would include northwestern pond turtle, cliff swallow, and elderberry longhorn beetle. The project would displace 1.3 acres of shaded riverine habitat, wetland habitat below the ordinary high-water mark of the Sacramento River, removal of 295 mature trees. Grading of the Elkhorn Canal could degrade its eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction and operation of the Natomas Mutual facilities would result increased light and glare in an area currently largely unaffected by such visual intrusion. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 080074, Volume I--766 pages, Volume II--388 pages, February 27, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0218F
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36413423?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+BASIN+FISH+SCREEN+AND+HABITAT+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+BASIN+FISH+SCREEN+AND+HABITAT+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 27, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - AMERICAN BASIN FISH SCREEN AND HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 5]
T2  - AMERICAN BASIN FISH SCREEN AND HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36383766; 13308-080074_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the American Basin Fish Screen (ABFS) and Habitat Improvement Project in Sutter and Sacramento counties, California are proposed by the Natomas Central Mutual Water Company (Natomas Mutual). The project must be authorized by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of Fish and Game, which would also provide funding under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act's Restoration Fund and the Bay-Delta Authority's Ecosystem Restoration Program, respectively. The ABFS and related habitat improvement measures would result in modification of Natomas Mutual's water diversion and distribution system adjacent to the Sacramento River and Natomas Cross Canal. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers two action alternatives and the No Action Alternative. Specifically, the proposed action would include construction and operation of one or two positive-barrier fish screen diversion facilities; consolidation of five existing water pumping plants on the Sacramento River and Natomas Cross Canal; decommissioning and removal of the Verona Diversion Dam and associated lift pumps; removal of five pumping plants and one small private diversion; and modification of the Natomas Mutual distribution canal system. State-of-the-art fish screens would be added to the new diversions. The proposed action would be implemented in phases. Phase I would involve the construction of the Sankey Diversion, the Sankey Canal, and Sankey Drain as well as associated improvements. Phase II would involve the construction of the Elkhorn Diversion and the Elkhorn Canal. Phase III would involve regrading the Riverside Canal and making associated improvements to the internal conveyance system as required to route flows from the Sankey Diversion. Phases II and III would be implemented only if funding became available. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would avoid or minimize potentially adverse effects to fish, particularly juvenile anadromous species, due to water diversions by Natomas Mutual and other small pumps operated by individual landowners for diversion of water into the Natomas Basin; ensure the reliability of Natomas Mutual's water diversion and distribution facilities for beneficial uses of its water supply within its service area; and maintain important habitat within the Natomas Basin created by the operation of Natomas Mutual's water distribution facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project could result in the disturbance of nesting habitat and permanent displacement of 9.5 acres of foraging habitat for the federally protected Swainson's hawk. Other protected species that could be affected by loss of habitat and disturbance of normal behaviors would include northwestern pond turtle, cliff swallow, and elderberry longhorn beetle. The project would displace 1.3 acres of shaded riverine habitat, wetland habitat below the ordinary high-water mark of the Sacramento River, removal of 295 mature trees. Grading of the Elkhorn Canal could degrade its eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction and operation of the Natomas Mutual facilities would result increased light and glare in an area currently largely unaffected by such visual intrusion. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 080074, Volume I--766 pages, Volume II--388 pages, February 27, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0218F
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383766?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+BASIN+FISH+SCREEN+AND+HABITAT+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+BASIN+FISH+SCREEN+AND+HABITAT+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 27, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - AMERICAN BASIN FISH SCREEN AND HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 5]
T2  - AMERICAN BASIN FISH SCREEN AND HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36383696; 13308-080074_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the American Basin Fish Screen (ABFS) and Habitat Improvement Project in Sutter and Sacramento counties, California are proposed by the Natomas Central Mutual Water Company (Natomas Mutual). The project must be authorized by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of Fish and Game, which would also provide funding under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act's Restoration Fund and the Bay-Delta Authority's Ecosystem Restoration Program, respectively. The ABFS and related habitat improvement measures would result in modification of Natomas Mutual's water diversion and distribution system adjacent to the Sacramento River and Natomas Cross Canal. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers two action alternatives and the No Action Alternative. Specifically, the proposed action would include construction and operation of one or two positive-barrier fish screen diversion facilities; consolidation of five existing water pumping plants on the Sacramento River and Natomas Cross Canal; decommissioning and removal of the Verona Diversion Dam and associated lift pumps; removal of five pumping plants and one small private diversion; and modification of the Natomas Mutual distribution canal system. State-of-the-art fish screens would be added to the new diversions. The proposed action would be implemented in phases. Phase I would involve the construction of the Sankey Diversion, the Sankey Canal, and Sankey Drain as well as associated improvements. Phase II would involve the construction of the Elkhorn Diversion and the Elkhorn Canal. Phase III would involve regrading the Riverside Canal and making associated improvements to the internal conveyance system as required to route flows from the Sankey Diversion. Phases II and III would be implemented only if funding became available. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would avoid or minimize potentially adverse effects to fish, particularly juvenile anadromous species, due to water diversions by Natomas Mutual and other small pumps operated by individual landowners for diversion of water into the Natomas Basin; ensure the reliability of Natomas Mutual's water diversion and distribution facilities for beneficial uses of its water supply within its service area; and maintain important habitat within the Natomas Basin created by the operation of Natomas Mutual's water distribution facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project could result in the disturbance of nesting habitat and permanent displacement of 9.5 acres of foraging habitat for the federally protected Swainson's hawk. Other protected species that could be affected by loss of habitat and disturbance of normal behaviors would include northwestern pond turtle, cliff swallow, and elderberry longhorn beetle. The project would displace 1.3 acres of shaded riverine habitat, wetland habitat below the ordinary high-water mark of the Sacramento River, removal of 295 mature trees. Grading of the Elkhorn Canal could degrade its eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction and operation of the Natomas Mutual facilities would result increased light and glare in an area currently largely unaffected by such visual intrusion. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 080074, Volume I--766 pages, Volume II--388 pages, February 27, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0218F
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383696?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+BASIN+FISH+SCREEN+AND+HABITAT+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+BASIN+FISH+SCREEN+AND+HABITAT+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 27, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - AMERICAN BASIN FISH SCREEN AND HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 5]
T2  - AMERICAN BASIN FISH SCREEN AND HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36382852; 13308-080074_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the American Basin Fish Screen (ABFS) and Habitat Improvement Project in Sutter and Sacramento counties, California are proposed by the Natomas Central Mutual Water Company (Natomas Mutual). The project must be authorized by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of Fish and Game, which would also provide funding under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act's Restoration Fund and the Bay-Delta Authority's Ecosystem Restoration Program, respectively. The ABFS and related habitat improvement measures would result in modification of Natomas Mutual's water diversion and distribution system adjacent to the Sacramento River and Natomas Cross Canal. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers two action alternatives and the No Action Alternative. Specifically, the proposed action would include construction and operation of one or two positive-barrier fish screen diversion facilities; consolidation of five existing water pumping plants on the Sacramento River and Natomas Cross Canal; decommissioning and removal of the Verona Diversion Dam and associated lift pumps; removal of five pumping plants and one small private diversion; and modification of the Natomas Mutual distribution canal system. State-of-the-art fish screens would be added to the new diversions. The proposed action would be implemented in phases. Phase I would involve the construction of the Sankey Diversion, the Sankey Canal, and Sankey Drain as well as associated improvements. Phase II would involve the construction of the Elkhorn Diversion and the Elkhorn Canal. Phase III would involve regrading the Riverside Canal and making associated improvements to the internal conveyance system as required to route flows from the Sankey Diversion. Phases II and III would be implemented only if funding became available. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would avoid or minimize potentially adverse effects to fish, particularly juvenile anadromous species, due to water diversions by Natomas Mutual and other small pumps operated by individual landowners for diversion of water into the Natomas Basin; ensure the reliability of Natomas Mutual's water diversion and distribution facilities for beneficial uses of its water supply within its service area; and maintain important habitat within the Natomas Basin created by the operation of Natomas Mutual's water distribution facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project could result in the disturbance of nesting habitat and permanent displacement of 9.5 acres of foraging habitat for the federally protected Swainson's hawk. Other protected species that could be affected by loss of habitat and disturbance of normal behaviors would include northwestern pond turtle, cliff swallow, and elderberry longhorn beetle. The project would displace 1.3 acres of shaded riverine habitat, wetland habitat below the ordinary high-water mark of the Sacramento River, removal of 295 mature trees. Grading of the Elkhorn Canal could degrade its eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction and operation of the Natomas Mutual facilities would result increased light and glare in an area currently largely unaffected by such visual intrusion. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 080074, Volume I--766 pages, Volume II--388 pages, February 27, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0218F
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382852?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+BASIN+FISH+SCREEN+AND+HABITAT+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+BASIN+FISH+SCREEN+AND+HABITAT+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 27, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - AMERICAN BASIN FISH SCREEN AND HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 5]
T2  - AMERICAN BASIN FISH SCREEN AND HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36382734; 13308-080074_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the American Basin Fish Screen (ABFS) and Habitat Improvement Project in Sutter and Sacramento counties, California are proposed by the Natomas Central Mutual Water Company (Natomas Mutual). The project must be authorized by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of Fish and Game, which would also provide funding under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act's Restoration Fund and the Bay-Delta Authority's Ecosystem Restoration Program, respectively. The ABFS and related habitat improvement measures would result in modification of Natomas Mutual's water diversion and distribution system adjacent to the Sacramento River and Natomas Cross Canal. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers two action alternatives and the No Action Alternative. Specifically, the proposed action would include construction and operation of one or two positive-barrier fish screen diversion facilities; consolidation of five existing water pumping plants on the Sacramento River and Natomas Cross Canal; decommissioning and removal of the Verona Diversion Dam and associated lift pumps; removal of five pumping plants and one small private diversion; and modification of the Natomas Mutual distribution canal system. State-of-the-art fish screens would be added to the new diversions. The proposed action would be implemented in phases. Phase I would involve the construction of the Sankey Diversion, the Sankey Canal, and Sankey Drain as well as associated improvements. Phase II would involve the construction of the Elkhorn Diversion and the Elkhorn Canal. Phase III would involve regrading the Riverside Canal and making associated improvements to the internal conveyance system as required to route flows from the Sankey Diversion. Phases II and III would be implemented only if funding became available. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would avoid or minimize potentially adverse effects to fish, particularly juvenile anadromous species, due to water diversions by Natomas Mutual and other small pumps operated by individual landowners for diversion of water into the Natomas Basin; ensure the reliability of Natomas Mutual's water diversion and distribution facilities for beneficial uses of its water supply within its service area; and maintain important habitat within the Natomas Basin created by the operation of Natomas Mutual's water distribution facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project could result in the disturbance of nesting habitat and permanent displacement of 9.5 acres of foraging habitat for the federally protected Swainson's hawk. Other protected species that could be affected by loss of habitat and disturbance of normal behaviors would include northwestern pond turtle, cliff swallow, and elderberry longhorn beetle. The project would displace 1.3 acres of shaded riverine habitat, wetland habitat below the ordinary high-water mark of the Sacramento River, removal of 295 mature trees. Grading of the Elkhorn Canal could degrade its eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction and operation of the Natomas Mutual facilities would result increased light and glare in an area currently largely unaffected by such visual intrusion. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 080074, Volume I--766 pages, Volume II--388 pages, February 27, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0218F
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382734?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+BASIN+FISH+SCREEN+AND+HABITAT+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+BASIN+FISH+SCREEN+AND+HABITAT+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 27, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - AMERICAN BASIN FISH SCREEN AND HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 5]
T2  - AMERICAN BASIN FISH SCREEN AND HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36382102; 13308-080074_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the American Basin Fish Screen (ABFS) and Habitat Improvement Project in Sutter and Sacramento counties, California are proposed by the Natomas Central Mutual Water Company (Natomas Mutual). The project must be authorized by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of Fish and Game, which would also provide funding under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act's Restoration Fund and the Bay-Delta Authority's Ecosystem Restoration Program, respectively. The ABFS and related habitat improvement measures would result in modification of Natomas Mutual's water diversion and distribution system adjacent to the Sacramento River and Natomas Cross Canal. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers two action alternatives and the No Action Alternative. Specifically, the proposed action would include construction and operation of one or two positive-barrier fish screen diversion facilities; consolidation of five existing water pumping plants on the Sacramento River and Natomas Cross Canal; decommissioning and removal of the Verona Diversion Dam and associated lift pumps; removal of five pumping plants and one small private diversion; and modification of the Natomas Mutual distribution canal system. State-of-the-art fish screens would be added to the new diversions. The proposed action would be implemented in phases. Phase I would involve the construction of the Sankey Diversion, the Sankey Canal, and Sankey Drain as well as associated improvements. Phase II would involve the construction of the Elkhorn Diversion and the Elkhorn Canal. Phase III would involve regrading the Riverside Canal and making associated improvements to the internal conveyance system as required to route flows from the Sankey Diversion. Phases II and III would be implemented only if funding became available. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would avoid or minimize potentially adverse effects to fish, particularly juvenile anadromous species, due to water diversions by Natomas Mutual and other small pumps operated by individual landowners for diversion of water into the Natomas Basin; ensure the reliability of Natomas Mutual's water diversion and distribution facilities for beneficial uses of its water supply within its service area; and maintain important habitat within the Natomas Basin created by the operation of Natomas Mutual's water distribution facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project could result in the disturbance of nesting habitat and permanent displacement of 9.5 acres of foraging habitat for the federally protected Swainson's hawk. Other protected species that could be affected by loss of habitat and disturbance of normal behaviors would include northwestern pond turtle, cliff swallow, and elderberry longhorn beetle. The project would displace 1.3 acres of shaded riverine habitat, wetland habitat below the ordinary high-water mark of the Sacramento River, removal of 295 mature trees. Grading of the Elkhorn Canal could degrade its eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction and operation of the Natomas Mutual facilities would result increased light and glare in an area currently largely unaffected by such visual intrusion. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 080074, Volume I--766 pages, Volume II--388 pages, February 27, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0218F
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Insects
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382102?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+BASIN+FISH+SCREEN+AND+HABITAT+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+BASIN+FISH+SCREEN+AND+HABITAT+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 27, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO.
AN  - 36411520; 13306
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the cities of Colorado Springs and Fountain, the Security Water District, and the Pueblo Metropolitan District is proposed to allow for the development of a water supply project to be known as the Southern Delivery System (SDS) Project in Colorado. The contract participants have a need to use developed and undeveloped water supplies to meet most of all projected future demands through 2046. Under the proposed action, the abovementioned contracts, each with a 40-year term, would allow for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities and the excess storage capacity in the Pueblo Reservoir and the exchange of water between the reservoir and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. Specifically, the contracts would cover storage of water in the reservoir, conveyance of water through facilities associated with the reservoir, and exchange of water between the reservoir and Reclamation-operated reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. A special use permit or other agreement from Reclamation could be necessary to connect the SDS Project pipeline to Reclamation facilities. Pueblo West would continue to maintain its existing conveyance with Reclamation to use the joint use manifold from the Pueblo Reservoir. A third federal action analyzed in this EIS is the approval of an administrative trade of an equal amount of capacity in the Fountain Valley Authority pipeline for capacity in the SDS Project untreated water pipeline and water treatment plant. The trade would allow Fountain to use a portion of Colorado Springs' Fountain Valley Authority capacity in trade for Colorado Springs' use of an equal amount of Fountain's capacity in the SDS Project. Transportation of the water taken under the contracts would require the installation of 2,200 feet of 78-inch pipeline, capable of conveying 96 million gallons per day (mgd), and 1,100 feet of 72-inch pipeline capable of conveying 78 mgd; installation of a 160-foot, 36-inch pipeline capable of conveying 18 mgd of untreated water to the Pueblo West Pump Station; a 43-mile, 66-inch pipeline and three pump stations capable of conveying 78 mgd of untreated water, a 35,500-acre-foot local terminal storage reservoir to store untreated water; a water treatment plant with a 109 mgd capacity to provide potable water for municipal and industrial use; transmission pipelines to convey water from the water treatment plant to local distribution systems; and a 28,500-acre-foot return flow storage reservoir and associated conveyance system to store and release Colorado Springs' reusable return flows. In addition, the project would require the relocation of electrical transmission lines at the local terminal storage reservoir site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SDS Project would provide a safe, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the contractees's consumers. The participants need to develop additional water storage, delivery, and treatment capacity to provide system redundancy. Finally, the participants wish to perfect and deliver their existing Arkansas River basin water rights. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline and water treatment plant construction and construction of ancillary facilities, such as transmission lines and pumping plants, would displace soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The pipeline would traverse sensitive desert land, including land providing habitat for federally protected animal species. Facility siting could result in the restriction or elimination of future mineral extraction in underlying areas. The availability of surplus water would spur residential, commercial, and industrial development as well as the development of irrigated farmland, resulting in even greater conversion of desert and other natural lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 080072, Draft EIS--593 pages and maps, Appendices--135 pages and maps, February 21, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-11
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Pueblo Reservoir
KW  - Arkansas River
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36411520?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 21, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO.
AN  - 36391760; 13306-080072_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the cities of Colorado Springs and Fountain, the Security Water District, and the Pueblo Metropolitan District is proposed to allow for the development of a water supply project to be known as the Southern Delivery System (SDS) Project in Colorado. The contract participants have a need to use developed and undeveloped water supplies to meet most of all projected future demands through 2046. Under the proposed action, the abovementioned contracts, each with a 40-year term, would allow for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities and the excess storage capacity in the Pueblo Reservoir and the exchange of water between the reservoir and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. Specifically, the contracts would cover storage of water in the reservoir, conveyance of water through facilities associated with the reservoir, and exchange of water between the reservoir and Reclamation-operated reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. A special use permit or other agreement from Reclamation could be necessary to connect the SDS Project pipeline to Reclamation facilities. Pueblo West would continue to maintain its existing conveyance with Reclamation to use the joint use manifold from the Pueblo Reservoir. A third federal action analyzed in this EIS is the approval of an administrative trade of an equal amount of capacity in the Fountain Valley Authority pipeline for capacity in the SDS Project untreated water pipeline and water treatment plant. The trade would allow Fountain to use a portion of Colorado Springs' Fountain Valley Authority capacity in trade for Colorado Springs' use of an equal amount of Fountain's capacity in the SDS Project. Transportation of the water taken under the contracts would require the installation of 2,200 feet of 78-inch pipeline, capable of conveying 96 million gallons per day (mgd), and 1,100 feet of 72-inch pipeline capable of conveying 78 mgd; installation of a 160-foot, 36-inch pipeline capable of conveying 18 mgd of untreated water to the Pueblo West Pump Station; a 43-mile, 66-inch pipeline and three pump stations capable of conveying 78 mgd of untreated water, a 35,500-acre-foot local terminal storage reservoir to store untreated water; a water treatment plant with a 109 mgd capacity to provide potable water for municipal and industrial use; transmission pipelines to convey water from the water treatment plant to local distribution systems; and a 28,500-acre-foot return flow storage reservoir and associated conveyance system to store and release Colorado Springs' reusable return flows. In addition, the project would require the relocation of electrical transmission lines at the local terminal storage reservoir site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SDS Project would provide a safe, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the contractees's consumers. The participants need to develop additional water storage, delivery, and treatment capacity to provide system redundancy. Finally, the participants wish to perfect and deliver their existing Arkansas River basin water rights. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline and water treatment plant construction and construction of ancillary facilities, such as transmission lines and pumping plants, would displace soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The pipeline would traverse sensitive desert land, including land providing habitat for federally protected animal species. Facility siting could result in the restriction or elimination of future mineral extraction in underlying areas. The availability of surplus water would spur residential, commercial, and industrial development as well as the development of irrigated farmland, resulting in even greater conversion of desert and other natural lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 080072, Draft EIS--593 pages and maps, Appendices--135 pages and maps, February 21, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-11
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Pueblo Reservoir
KW  - Arkansas River
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391760?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 21, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO.
AN  - 36382469; 13306-080072_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the cities of Colorado Springs and Fountain, the Security Water District, and the Pueblo Metropolitan District is proposed to allow for the development of a water supply project to be known as the Southern Delivery System (SDS) Project in Colorado. The contract participants have a need to use developed and undeveloped water supplies to meet most of all projected future demands through 2046. Under the proposed action, the abovementioned contracts, each with a 40-year term, would allow for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities and the excess storage capacity in the Pueblo Reservoir and the exchange of water between the reservoir and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. Specifically, the contracts would cover storage of water in the reservoir, conveyance of water through facilities associated with the reservoir, and exchange of water between the reservoir and Reclamation-operated reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. A special use permit or other agreement from Reclamation could be necessary to connect the SDS Project pipeline to Reclamation facilities. Pueblo West would continue to maintain its existing conveyance with Reclamation to use the joint use manifold from the Pueblo Reservoir. A third federal action analyzed in this EIS is the approval of an administrative trade of an equal amount of capacity in the Fountain Valley Authority pipeline for capacity in the SDS Project untreated water pipeline and water treatment plant. The trade would allow Fountain to use a portion of Colorado Springs' Fountain Valley Authority capacity in trade for Colorado Springs' use of an equal amount of Fountain's capacity in the SDS Project. Transportation of the water taken under the contracts would require the installation of 2,200 feet of 78-inch pipeline, capable of conveying 96 million gallons per day (mgd), and 1,100 feet of 72-inch pipeline capable of conveying 78 mgd; installation of a 160-foot, 36-inch pipeline capable of conveying 18 mgd of untreated water to the Pueblo West Pump Station; a 43-mile, 66-inch pipeline and three pump stations capable of conveying 78 mgd of untreated water, a 35,500-acre-foot local terminal storage reservoir to store untreated water; a water treatment plant with a 109 mgd capacity to provide potable water for municipal and industrial use; transmission pipelines to convey water from the water treatment plant to local distribution systems; and a 28,500-acre-foot return flow storage reservoir and associated conveyance system to store and release Colorado Springs' reusable return flows. In addition, the project would require the relocation of electrical transmission lines at the local terminal storage reservoir site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SDS Project would provide a safe, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the contractees's consumers. The participants need to develop additional water storage, delivery, and treatment capacity to provide system redundancy. Finally, the participants wish to perfect and deliver their existing Arkansas River basin water rights. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline and water treatment plant construction and construction of ancillary facilities, such as transmission lines and pumping plants, would displace soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The pipeline would traverse sensitive desert land, including land providing habitat for federally protected animal species. Facility siting could result in the restriction or elimination of future mineral extraction in underlying areas. The availability of surplus water would spur residential, commercial, and industrial development as well as the development of irrigated farmland, resulting in even greater conversion of desert and other natural lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 080072, Draft EIS--593 pages and maps, Appendices--135 pages and maps, February 21, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-11
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Pueblo Reservoir
KW  - Arkansas River
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382469?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 21, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO.
AN  - 36381985; 13306-080072_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the cities of Colorado Springs and Fountain, the Security Water District, and the Pueblo Metropolitan District is proposed to allow for the development of a water supply project to be known as the Southern Delivery System (SDS) Project in Colorado. The contract participants have a need to use developed and undeveloped water supplies to meet most of all projected future demands through 2046. Under the proposed action, the abovementioned contracts, each with a 40-year term, would allow for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities and the excess storage capacity in the Pueblo Reservoir and the exchange of water between the reservoir and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. Specifically, the contracts would cover storage of water in the reservoir, conveyance of water through facilities associated with the reservoir, and exchange of water between the reservoir and Reclamation-operated reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. A special use permit or other agreement from Reclamation could be necessary to connect the SDS Project pipeline to Reclamation facilities. Pueblo West would continue to maintain its existing conveyance with Reclamation to use the joint use manifold from the Pueblo Reservoir. A third federal action analyzed in this EIS is the approval of an administrative trade of an equal amount of capacity in the Fountain Valley Authority pipeline for capacity in the SDS Project untreated water pipeline and water treatment plant. The trade would allow Fountain to use a portion of Colorado Springs' Fountain Valley Authority capacity in trade for Colorado Springs' use of an equal amount of Fountain's capacity in the SDS Project. Transportation of the water taken under the contracts would require the installation of 2,200 feet of 78-inch pipeline, capable of conveying 96 million gallons per day (mgd), and 1,100 feet of 72-inch pipeline capable of conveying 78 mgd; installation of a 160-foot, 36-inch pipeline capable of conveying 18 mgd of untreated water to the Pueblo West Pump Station; a 43-mile, 66-inch pipeline and three pump stations capable of conveying 78 mgd of untreated water, a 35,500-acre-foot local terminal storage reservoir to store untreated water; a water treatment plant with a 109 mgd capacity to provide potable water for municipal and industrial use; transmission pipelines to convey water from the water treatment plant to local distribution systems; and a 28,500-acre-foot return flow storage reservoir and associated conveyance system to store and release Colorado Springs' reusable return flows. In addition, the project would require the relocation of electrical transmission lines at the local terminal storage reservoir site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SDS Project would provide a safe, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the contractees's consumers. The participants need to develop additional water storage, delivery, and treatment capacity to provide system redundancy. Finally, the participants wish to perfect and deliver their existing Arkansas River basin water rights. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline and water treatment plant construction and construction of ancillary facilities, such as transmission lines and pumping plants, would displace soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The pipeline would traverse sensitive desert land, including land providing habitat for federally protected animal species. Facility siting could result in the restriction or elimination of future mineral extraction in underlying areas. The availability of surplus water would spur residential, commercial, and industrial development as well as the development of irrigated farmland, resulting in even greater conversion of desert and other natural lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 080072, Draft EIS--593 pages and maps, Appendices--135 pages and maps, February 21, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-11
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Pueblo Reservoir
KW  - Arkansas River
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381985?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 21, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MINUTEMAN MISSILE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, JACKSON AND PENNINGTON COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - MINUTEMAN MISSILE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, JACKSON AND PENNINGTON COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 36381746; 13302-080068_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Minuteman Missile Historic Site of Jackson and Pennington counties, South Dakota is proposed. The site was established in November 1999 to preserve one of the last remaining Minuteman II intercontinental ballistic system (IBM) silos in the United States and, thereby, to interpret the deterrent value of the land-based aspect of the country's nuclear missile defense during the Cold War era. The historic features consist of the 6.35-acre Delta One and 1.5-acre Delta Nine facilities, each of which contains substantial amount of equipment and infrastructure associated with IBM deployment, an historically significant aspect of 20th Century American history. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the two silos, the cultural landscape, collections of artifacts related to the silos, the visitor experience, facilities to accommodate visitor and administrative needs, interpretation of the historic site, and site boundaries. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would present the sites as though it were still in operation as it was when it was before July 1991, when the START Treaty was signed at the close of the Cold War. Alternative 3 would present the sites in its stand-down appearance, representing its status from the ratification of the START Treaty of October 1992 to the establishment of the national historic site in 1999, thereby symbolizing the nation's preparedness during the Cold War. Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, would present the sites as symbols to commemorate the Cold War. Under this alternative, Delta One would be presented, as under Alternative 2, in its ready-alert status, while Delta Nine would be presented in stand-down status as under Alternative 3. Visitors would experience the Delta One facility on a ranger-lead tour. Visitors would drive their personal cars to Delta Nine. The historic sites would be supported by a 7,000-square-foot visitor/administrative facility and a bus shuttle system north of Exit 131. One-time capital costs and annual operation costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $1.03 million and $624,000, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The historic facilities would provide symbols commemorating the history and significance of the Cold War, the arms race, and the intercontinental ballistic missile during the second half of the 20th Century Management actions would recognize the opportunity to publicly acknowledge the role of all individuals involved in the Minuteman II mission. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Social trailing in the grassland surrounding Delta Nine would result in loss of vegetation, a minor impact. Increased visitation would also result in wear and tear on the historic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and Public Law 106-115.
JF  - EPA number: 080068, 299 pages, February 21, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-12
KW  - Foreign Policies
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Missiles
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Nuclear Facilities
KW  - Weapon Systems
KW  - Minuteman Missile National Historic Site
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 106-115, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381746?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MINUTEMAN+MISSILE+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+JACKSON+AND+PENNINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MINUTEMAN+MISSILE+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+JACKSON+AND+PENNINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Philip, South Dakota; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 21, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MINUTEMAN MISSILE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, JACKSON AND PENNINGTON COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 16373331; 13302
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Minuteman Missile Historic Site of Jackson and Pennington counties, South Dakota is proposed. The site was established in November 1999 to preserve one of the last remaining Minuteman II intercontinental ballistic system (IBM) silos in the United States and, thereby, to interpret the deterrent value of the land-based aspect of the country's nuclear missile defense during the Cold War era. The historic features consist of the 6.35-acre Delta One and 1.5-acre Delta Nine facilities, each of which contains substantial amount of equipment and infrastructure associated with IBM deployment, an historically significant aspect of 20th Century American history. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the two silos, the cultural landscape, collections of artifacts related to the silos, the visitor experience, facilities to accommodate visitor and administrative needs, interpretation of the historic site, and site boundaries. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would present the sites as though it were still in operation as it was when it was before July 1991, when the START Treaty was signed at the close of the Cold War. Alternative 3 would present the sites in its stand-down appearance, representing its status from the ratification of the START Treaty of October 1992 to the establishment of the national historic site in 1999, thereby symbolizing the nation's preparedness during the Cold War. Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, would present the sites as symbols to commemorate the Cold War. Under this alternative, Delta One would be presented, as under Alternative 2, in its ready-alert status, while Delta Nine would be presented in stand-down status as under Alternative 3. Visitors would experience the Delta One facility on a ranger-lead tour. Visitors would drive their personal cars to Delta Nine. The historic sites would be supported by a 7,000-square-foot visitor/administrative facility and a bus shuttle system north of Exit 131. One-time capital costs and annual operation costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $1.03 million and $624,000, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The historic facilities would provide symbols commemorating the history and significance of the Cold War, the arms race, and the intercontinental ballistic missile during the second half of the 20th Century Management actions would recognize the opportunity to publicly acknowledge the role of all individuals involved in the Minuteman II mission. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Social trailing in the grassland surrounding Delta Nine would result in loss of vegetation, a minor impact. Increased visitation would also result in wear and tear on the historic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and Public Law 106-115.
JF  - EPA number: 080068, 299 pages, February 21, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-12
KW  - Foreign Policies
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Missiles
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Nuclear Facilities
KW  - Weapon Systems
KW  - Minuteman Missile National Historic Site
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 106-115, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16373331?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MINUTEMAN+MISSILE+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+JACKSON+AND+PENNINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MINUTEMAN+MISSILE+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+JACKSON+AND+PENNINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Philip, South Dakota; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 21, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
AN  - 36412966; 13303
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Saguaro National Park in the Tucson vicinity of Arizona. The park encompasses 91,445 acres within two units: the 24,034-acre Tucson Mountain Unit located west of metropolitan Tucson and the 67,441-acre Ricon Mountain District east of Tucson. The last general management plan for the park was completed in 1988, since when visitor use patterns and types have changed, the population of the city of Tucson has doubled, and an additional 7,577 acres have been added to the park. Each of these changes has implications for how visitors access and use the national park and the facilities needed to support those uses, how resources are managed, and how the National Park Service manages its operations. Issues of interest in the planning process, identified during scoping, include those related to natural resources, cultural resources, visitor use and experience, the local socioeconomic situation, transportation facilities, and park operations. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this abbreviated final EIS, which errata for the draft EIS and documentation of public and agency comments and responses. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would emphasize protection of the park's ecological processes and biological diversity by reducing fragmentation of wildlife and plant habitats and protecting wildlife travel corridors. Visitation would be managed and redirected when necessary to protect sensitive natural resources and minimize impacts to resources. Basic facilities for visitor safety and services would be provided inside the park. Appropriate access would be provided for visitor convenience in entering the park and access areas of interest within park boundaries. The plan would include removal and relocation of the Civilian Aeronautical Administration building, the removal and reconstruction of the corral and park housing at Madrona, reduction of equipment and personnel at Manning Camp, and installation of new exhibits and other interpretative media in the Rincon Mountain visitor center and at other key locations around the park. Alternative 3 would provide a wider range of visitor opportunities than Alternative 2, though recreational developments would be compatible with the preservation of park resources and wilderness characteristics. Initial capital costs, annual operation and maintenance costs, and replacement costs under the preferred alternative are estimated at $9.3 million, $5.3 million, and $445,534, respectively; total life cycle costs are estimated at $15.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would clearly define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved in the park; provide a framework for park managers to use when making decisions concerning the means of best protecting park resources, promulgate a diverse range of visitor experiences, and select and manage facilities; and ensure that this foundation for decision-making has been developed in consultation with interested stakeholders and adopted by the federal park leadership. Implementing the alternative would result in moderate to major benefits for the visitor experience, resulting from enhanced protection of park resources and unique park opportunity values. The plan would provide for outstanding primitive hiking and camping opportunities for solitude. Increased visitation would boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased visitation would place stress on recreation facilities and pristine natural resources, including wilderness areas, and increase user conflicts on trails and commuter traffic along park roads. Accidental damage to cultural resources and vandalism would also increase due to increased visitation. Facilities construction would displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and disturb soils, resulting in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. Demolition of the Civilian Aeronautical Administration building would result in the loss of an historically significant structure. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 94-567, and Public Law 102-61. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0262D, Volume 31, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080069, Final EIS--37 pages, Draft EIS--397 pages, February 20, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-07
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Saguaro National Park
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Program Authorization
KW  - Public Law 94-567, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 102-61, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36412966?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAGUARO+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SAGUARO+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Tucson, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
AN  - 36383355; 13303-080069_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Saguaro National Park in the Tucson vicinity of Arizona. The park encompasses 91,445 acres within two units: the 24,034-acre Tucson Mountain Unit located west of metropolitan Tucson and the 67,441-acre Ricon Mountain District east of Tucson. The last general management plan for the park was completed in 1988, since when visitor use patterns and types have changed, the population of the city of Tucson has doubled, and an additional 7,577 acres have been added to the park. Each of these changes has implications for how visitors access and use the national park and the facilities needed to support those uses, how resources are managed, and how the National Park Service manages its operations. Issues of interest in the planning process, identified during scoping, include those related to natural resources, cultural resources, visitor use and experience, the local socioeconomic situation, transportation facilities, and park operations. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this abbreviated final EIS, which errata for the draft EIS and documentation of public and agency comments and responses. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would emphasize protection of the park's ecological processes and biological diversity by reducing fragmentation of wildlife and plant habitats and protecting wildlife travel corridors. Visitation would be managed and redirected when necessary to protect sensitive natural resources and minimize impacts to resources. Basic facilities for visitor safety and services would be provided inside the park. Appropriate access would be provided for visitor convenience in entering the park and access areas of interest within park boundaries. The plan would include removal and relocation of the Civilian Aeronautical Administration building, the removal and reconstruction of the corral and park housing at Madrona, reduction of equipment and personnel at Manning Camp, and installation of new exhibits and other interpretative media in the Rincon Mountain visitor center and at other key locations around the park. Alternative 3 would provide a wider range of visitor opportunities than Alternative 2, though recreational developments would be compatible with the preservation of park resources and wilderness characteristics. Initial capital costs, annual operation and maintenance costs, and replacement costs under the preferred alternative are estimated at $9.3 million, $5.3 million, and $445,534, respectively; total life cycle costs are estimated at $15.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would clearly define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved in the park; provide a framework for park managers to use when making decisions concerning the means of best protecting park resources, promulgate a diverse range of visitor experiences, and select and manage facilities; and ensure that this foundation for decision-making has been developed in consultation with interested stakeholders and adopted by the federal park leadership. Implementing the alternative would result in moderate to major benefits for the visitor experience, resulting from enhanced protection of park resources and unique park opportunity values. The plan would provide for outstanding primitive hiking and camping opportunities for solitude. Increased visitation would boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased visitation would place stress on recreation facilities and pristine natural resources, including wilderness areas, and increase user conflicts on trails and commuter traffic along park roads. Accidental damage to cultural resources and vandalism would also increase due to increased visitation. Facilities construction would displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and disturb soils, resulting in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. Demolition of the Civilian Aeronautical Administration building would result in the loss of an historically significant structure. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 94-567, and Public Law 102-61. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0262D, Volume 31, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080069, Final EIS--37 pages, Draft EIS--397 pages, February 20, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-07
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Saguaro National Park
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Program Authorization
KW  - Public Law 94-567, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 102-61, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383355?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAGUARO+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SAGUARO+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Tucson, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
AN  - 36382422; 13303-080069_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Saguaro National Park in the Tucson vicinity of Arizona. The park encompasses 91,445 acres within two units: the 24,034-acre Tucson Mountain Unit located west of metropolitan Tucson and the 67,441-acre Ricon Mountain District east of Tucson. The last general management plan for the park was completed in 1988, since when visitor use patterns and types have changed, the population of the city of Tucson has doubled, and an additional 7,577 acres have been added to the park. Each of these changes has implications for how visitors access and use the national park and the facilities needed to support those uses, how resources are managed, and how the National Park Service manages its operations. Issues of interest in the planning process, identified during scoping, include those related to natural resources, cultural resources, visitor use and experience, the local socioeconomic situation, transportation facilities, and park operations. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this abbreviated final EIS, which errata for the draft EIS and documentation of public and agency comments and responses. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would emphasize protection of the park's ecological processes and biological diversity by reducing fragmentation of wildlife and plant habitats and protecting wildlife travel corridors. Visitation would be managed and redirected when necessary to protect sensitive natural resources and minimize impacts to resources. Basic facilities for visitor safety and services would be provided inside the park. Appropriate access would be provided for visitor convenience in entering the park and access areas of interest within park boundaries. The plan would include removal and relocation of the Civilian Aeronautical Administration building, the removal and reconstruction of the corral and park housing at Madrona, reduction of equipment and personnel at Manning Camp, and installation of new exhibits and other interpretative media in the Rincon Mountain visitor center and at other key locations around the park. Alternative 3 would provide a wider range of visitor opportunities than Alternative 2, though recreational developments would be compatible with the preservation of park resources and wilderness characteristics. Initial capital costs, annual operation and maintenance costs, and replacement costs under the preferred alternative are estimated at $9.3 million, $5.3 million, and $445,534, respectively; total life cycle costs are estimated at $15.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would clearly define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved in the park; provide a framework for park managers to use when making decisions concerning the means of best protecting park resources, promulgate a diverse range of visitor experiences, and select and manage facilities; and ensure that this foundation for decision-making has been developed in consultation with interested stakeholders and adopted by the federal park leadership. Implementing the alternative would result in moderate to major benefits for the visitor experience, resulting from enhanced protection of park resources and unique park opportunity values. The plan would provide for outstanding primitive hiking and camping opportunities for solitude. Increased visitation would boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased visitation would place stress on recreation facilities and pristine natural resources, including wilderness areas, and increase user conflicts on trails and commuter traffic along park roads. Accidental damage to cultural resources and vandalism would also increase due to increased visitation. Facilities construction would displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and disturb soils, resulting in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. Demolition of the Civilian Aeronautical Administration building would result in the loss of an historically significant structure. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 94-567, and Public Law 102-61. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0262D, Volume 31, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080069, Final EIS--37 pages, Draft EIS--397 pages, February 20, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-07
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Saguaro National Park
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Program Authorization
KW  - Public Law 94-567, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 102-61, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382422?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAGUARO+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SAGUARO+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Tucson, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
AN  - 36381792; 13303-080069_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Saguaro National Park in the Tucson vicinity of Arizona. The park encompasses 91,445 acres within two units: the 24,034-acre Tucson Mountain Unit located west of metropolitan Tucson and the 67,441-acre Ricon Mountain District east of Tucson. The last general management plan for the park was completed in 1988, since when visitor use patterns and types have changed, the population of the city of Tucson has doubled, and an additional 7,577 acres have been added to the park. Each of these changes has implications for how visitors access and use the national park and the facilities needed to support those uses, how resources are managed, and how the National Park Service manages its operations. Issues of interest in the planning process, identified during scoping, include those related to natural resources, cultural resources, visitor use and experience, the local socioeconomic situation, transportation facilities, and park operations. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this abbreviated final EIS, which errata for the draft EIS and documentation of public and agency comments and responses. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would emphasize protection of the park's ecological processes and biological diversity by reducing fragmentation of wildlife and plant habitats and protecting wildlife travel corridors. Visitation would be managed and redirected when necessary to protect sensitive natural resources and minimize impacts to resources. Basic facilities for visitor safety and services would be provided inside the park. Appropriate access would be provided for visitor convenience in entering the park and access areas of interest within park boundaries. The plan would include removal and relocation of the Civilian Aeronautical Administration building, the removal and reconstruction of the corral and park housing at Madrona, reduction of equipment and personnel at Manning Camp, and installation of new exhibits and other interpretative media in the Rincon Mountain visitor center and at other key locations around the park. Alternative 3 would provide a wider range of visitor opportunities than Alternative 2, though recreational developments would be compatible with the preservation of park resources and wilderness characteristics. Initial capital costs, annual operation and maintenance costs, and replacement costs under the preferred alternative are estimated at $9.3 million, $5.3 million, and $445,534, respectively; total life cycle costs are estimated at $15.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would clearly define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved in the park; provide a framework for park managers to use when making decisions concerning the means of best protecting park resources, promulgate a diverse range of visitor experiences, and select and manage facilities; and ensure that this foundation for decision-making has been developed in consultation with interested stakeholders and adopted by the federal park leadership. Implementing the alternative would result in moderate to major benefits for the visitor experience, resulting from enhanced protection of park resources and unique park opportunity values. The plan would provide for outstanding primitive hiking and camping opportunities for solitude. Increased visitation would boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased visitation would place stress on recreation facilities and pristine natural resources, including wilderness areas, and increase user conflicts on trails and commuter traffic along park roads. Accidental damage to cultural resources and vandalism would also increase due to increased visitation. Facilities construction would displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and disturb soils, resulting in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. Demolition of the Civilian Aeronautical Administration building would result in the loss of an historically significant structure. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 94-567, and Public Law 102-61. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0262D, Volume 31, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080069, Final EIS--37 pages, Draft EIS--397 pages, February 20, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-07
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Saguaro National Park
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Program Authorization
KW  - Public Law 94-567, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 102-61, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381792?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAGUARO+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SAGUARO+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Tucson, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FIRE, FUELS, AND RELATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT DIRECTION PLAN AMENDMENT, REGIONAL ASSESSMENT FOR SOUTHEAST/SOUTH CENTRAL IDAHO.
AN  - 36415523; 13300
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the 12 existing land use plans directing management of the Bureau of Land Management's Upper Snake River District of Idaho is proposed to address fire, fuels, and related vegetation management issues. Currently, many of the vegetation types within the district have altered fire regimes that are not within their historical range of variability. Large and/or severe fires in these vegetation types can threaten people and property as well as the resiliency, integrity, and long-term sustainability of ecosystem components and processes. Fires have been occurring more frequently and burning more severely in some vegetation community types, The invasion of sagebrush steppe by annual grasses, such as cheatgrass and medusahead rye, has substantially increased fine fuel loads in these communities, making them more susceptible to large, frequent, and severe fires. In other plant communities, fires are occurring less frequently than they did historically, causing undesirable changes in plant species composition and structure and an accumulation of hazardous fuels. Key issues identified during scoping include the extent of acreage identified for treatment and impacts on habitat for sage grouse, a federally protected species. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The originally proposed action (Alternative B), would increase the use of vegetation treatments and restoration activities and the use of fire in all plant communities excepting wet/cold conifer, riparian, salt desert shrub, and vegetated rock/lava. Alternative C would implement fire treatment levels to meet the goals of the Cohesive Strategy and the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. Alternative D was developed to determine the appropriate level and kind of treatments within the sagebrush steppe ecosystem to meet the purpose of the proposed action while benefitting sagebrush habitat, sage grouse, and sagebrush-obloigate species. Alternative E, the preferred alternative, would increase the use of vegetation treatments and restoration, as well as the use of fire, in all vegetation communities excepting communities in wet/cold conifer, riparian, salt desert chrub, and rock/lava ecosystems. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would establish fire management guidance, objectives, policies, and management actions that best respond to the need to adjust the vegetation regimes in the district. Wildfire would be reintroduced as a necessary element in the development and maintenance of healthy ecosystems. Hazardous levels of fuel loading would be rectified. Habitat for sage grouse would be protected and enhanced. Aspen, Douglas-fir, juniper, and pinyon pine stands would undergo required control through prescribed fire. The threat of wildfire to human communities in the district would be reduced significantly. Treatment expenditures would funnel $64 million into the local economy over the next 10 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The plan would place aspen and dry conifer stands and mountain shurb communities at risk for the loss of key ecosystem components. Other communities that could be negatively affected include low- and mid-elevation shrub, mountain shrub, and wet/cold conifer. Vegetation treatments would destroy a portion of source habitat, and could result in the loss of some individual communities of endangered plant species. Four human communities would remain at moderate risk for wildland/urban interface fires. Approximately 1.5 million footprint acres would be unavailable to wildlife for portions of the following 10 years, and 28,927 animal unit months of forage would be temporarily unavailable to livestock each year; this latter figure would represent the loss of 4.3 percent of the available forage and $439,040 in grazing permit fees. Cultural resources, including resources of value to Native Americans, could be damaged or destroyed. Vegetation treatments would also temporarily prevent access to some recreational areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0201D, Volume 29, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080066, Final EIS--629 pages and maps, Appendices--498 pages, February 19,2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Birds
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Pocatello Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36415523?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE%2C+FUELS%2C+AND+RELATED+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+DIRECTION+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+REGIONAL+ASSESSMENT+FOR+SOUTHEAST%2FSOUTH+CENTRAL+IDAHO.&rft.title=FIRE%2C+FUELS%2C+AND+RELATED+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+DIRECTION+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+REGIONAL+ASSESSMENT+FOR+SOUTHEAST%2FSOUTH+CENTRAL+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 19,2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SNAKE RIVER BIRDS OF PREY NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA, ADA, CANYON, ELMORE, AND OWYHEE COUNTIES, IDAHO. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - SNAKE RIVER BIRDS OF PREY NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA, ADA, CANYON, ELMORE, AND OWYHEE COUNTIES, IDAHO.
AN  - 36392564; 13299-080065_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general resource management plan for the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (NCA) of Ada, Canyon, Elmore, and Owyhee counties, Idaho is proposed. The 483,700-acre NCA in southwestern Idaho was established in 1993 to conserve, protect, and enhance raptor populations and habitats. The NCA contains the greatest concentration of nesting raptors in North America. The cliffs of the Snake River Canyon provide ideal nesting sites, while adjacent upland plateau supports unusually large populations of small mammalian prey. The area also provides training grounds for the Idaho Air National Guard and Army National Guard and land for the Shoshone-Bannock and Shoshone-Paiute tribes. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The current habitat restoration program would be driven primarily by emergency fire rehabilitation processes, resulting in a minimal increase in the acreage of shrub communities. Current uses would be accommodated, but could be moderated based on new laws, regulations, and policies. Alternative B would emphasize the restoration of a moderate amount of raptor and raptor prey habitat in addition to those acres affected by emergency fire rehabilitation and fuels management projects. This alternative would accommodate recreational uses, military operations, and commodity uses that were compatible with the purposes of the NCA. Alternative C would emphasize the restoration and rehabilitation of all non-shrub areas outside the Orchard Training Area to improve raptor and raptor prey habitat. To support this level of habitat restoration, recreational uses and military training would be substantially restricted and livestock grazing would be eliminated. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize the restoration and rehabilitation of all non-shrub areas outside the Orchard Training Area to improve raptor and raptor prey habitat, while imposing only moderate restrictions on recreation, military training, and commercial uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: While continue to effect the mandate establishing the NCA by protecting and enhancing habitat for raptors and raptor prey, the general management plan would ensure appropriate commercial, public and military use of the NCA. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued designation of the area as an NCA would prevent the exploitation of resources that would damage raptor habitat or hunting areas. Management measures, including vegetation manipulations, as well as military training operations, recreational user activities, and exploitative use of the NCA lands would result in disturbance of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and cultural resource sites. User conflicts between recreationists, naturalists, and grazing allotment operators and other exploitative users would increase due to increase visitation and more intensive management. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Public Law 103-64. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0383D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080065, Final EIS--417 pages; Supporting Documents--312 pages, February 19,2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: ID-11-2006-EIS-1740
KW  - Birds
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Military Facilities (Air Force)
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Air Force)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 103-64, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392564?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SNAKE+RIVER+BIRDS+OF+PREY+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+ADA%2C+CANYON%2C+ELMORE%2C+AND+OWYHEE+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=SNAKE+RIVER+BIRDS+OF+PREY+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+ADA%2C+CANYON%2C+ELMORE%2C+AND+OWYHEE+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 19,2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SNAKE RIVER BIRDS OF PREY NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA, ADA, CANYON, ELMORE, AND OWYHEE COUNTIES, IDAHO. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - SNAKE RIVER BIRDS OF PREY NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA, ADA, CANYON, ELMORE, AND OWYHEE COUNTIES, IDAHO.
AN  - 36382934; 13299-080065_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general resource management plan for the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (NCA) of Ada, Canyon, Elmore, and Owyhee counties, Idaho is proposed. The 483,700-acre NCA in southwestern Idaho was established in 1993 to conserve, protect, and enhance raptor populations and habitats. The NCA contains the greatest concentration of nesting raptors in North America. The cliffs of the Snake River Canyon provide ideal nesting sites, while adjacent upland plateau supports unusually large populations of small mammalian prey. The area also provides training grounds for the Idaho Air National Guard and Army National Guard and land for the Shoshone-Bannock and Shoshone-Paiute tribes. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The current habitat restoration program would be driven primarily by emergency fire rehabilitation processes, resulting in a minimal increase in the acreage of shrub communities. Current uses would be accommodated, but could be moderated based on new laws, regulations, and policies. Alternative B would emphasize the restoration of a moderate amount of raptor and raptor prey habitat in addition to those acres affected by emergency fire rehabilitation and fuels management projects. This alternative would accommodate recreational uses, military operations, and commodity uses that were compatible with the purposes of the NCA. Alternative C would emphasize the restoration and rehabilitation of all non-shrub areas outside the Orchard Training Area to improve raptor and raptor prey habitat. To support this level of habitat restoration, recreational uses and military training would be substantially restricted and livestock grazing would be eliminated. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize the restoration and rehabilitation of all non-shrub areas outside the Orchard Training Area to improve raptor and raptor prey habitat, while imposing only moderate restrictions on recreation, military training, and commercial uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: While continue to effect the mandate establishing the NCA by protecting and enhancing habitat for raptors and raptor prey, the general management plan would ensure appropriate commercial, public and military use of the NCA. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued designation of the area as an NCA would prevent the exploitation of resources that would damage raptor habitat or hunting areas. Management measures, including vegetation manipulations, as well as military training operations, recreational user activities, and exploitative use of the NCA lands would result in disturbance of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and cultural resource sites. User conflicts between recreationists, naturalists, and grazing allotment operators and other exploitative users would increase due to increase visitation and more intensive management. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Public Law 103-64. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0383D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080065, Final EIS--417 pages; Supporting Documents--312 pages, February 19,2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: ID-11-2006-EIS-1740
KW  - Birds
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Military Facilities (Air Force)
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Air Force)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 103-64, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382934?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SNAKE+RIVER+BIRDS+OF+PREY+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+ADA%2C+CANYON%2C+ELMORE%2C+AND+OWYHEE+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=SNAKE+RIVER+BIRDS+OF+PREY+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+ADA%2C+CANYON%2C+ELMORE%2C+AND+OWYHEE+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 19,2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FIRE, FUELS, AND RELATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT DIRECTION PLAN AMENDMENT, REGIONAL ASSESSMENT FOR SOUTHEAST/SOUTH CENTRAL IDAHO. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - FIRE, FUELS, AND RELATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT DIRECTION PLAN AMENDMENT, REGIONAL ASSESSMENT FOR SOUTHEAST/SOUTH CENTRAL IDAHO.
AN  - 36382566; 13300-080066_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the 12 existing land use plans directing management of the Bureau of Land Management's Upper Snake River District of Idaho is proposed to address fire, fuels, and related vegetation management issues. Currently, many of the vegetation types within the district have altered fire regimes that are not within their historical range of variability. Large and/or severe fires in these vegetation types can threaten people and property as well as the resiliency, integrity, and long-term sustainability of ecosystem components and processes. Fires have been occurring more frequently and burning more severely in some vegetation community types, The invasion of sagebrush steppe by annual grasses, such as cheatgrass and medusahead rye, has substantially increased fine fuel loads in these communities, making them more susceptible to large, frequent, and severe fires. In other plant communities, fires are occurring less frequently than they did historically, causing undesirable changes in plant species composition and structure and an accumulation of hazardous fuels. Key issues identified during scoping include the extent of acreage identified for treatment and impacts on habitat for sage grouse, a federally protected species. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The originally proposed action (Alternative B), would increase the use of vegetation treatments and restoration activities and the use of fire in all plant communities excepting wet/cold conifer, riparian, salt desert shrub, and vegetated rock/lava. Alternative C would implement fire treatment levels to meet the goals of the Cohesive Strategy and the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. Alternative D was developed to determine the appropriate level and kind of treatments within the sagebrush steppe ecosystem to meet the purpose of the proposed action while benefitting sagebrush habitat, sage grouse, and sagebrush-obloigate species. Alternative E, the preferred alternative, would increase the use of vegetation treatments and restoration, as well as the use of fire, in all vegetation communities excepting communities in wet/cold conifer, riparian, salt desert chrub, and rock/lava ecosystems. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would establish fire management guidance, objectives, policies, and management actions that best respond to the need to adjust the vegetation regimes in the district. Wildfire would be reintroduced as a necessary element in the development and maintenance of healthy ecosystems. Hazardous levels of fuel loading would be rectified. Habitat for sage grouse would be protected and enhanced. Aspen, Douglas-fir, juniper, and pinyon pine stands would undergo required control through prescribed fire. The threat of wildfire to human communities in the district would be reduced significantly. Treatment expenditures would funnel $64 million into the local economy over the next 10 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The plan would place aspen and dry conifer stands and mountain shurb communities at risk for the loss of key ecosystem components. Other communities that could be negatively affected include low- and mid-elevation shrub, mountain shrub, and wet/cold conifer. Vegetation treatments would destroy a portion of source habitat, and could result in the loss of some individual communities of endangered plant species. Four human communities would remain at moderate risk for wildland/urban interface fires. Approximately 1.5 million footprint acres would be unavailable to wildlife for portions of the following 10 years, and 28,927 animal unit months of forage would be temporarily unavailable to livestock each year; this latter figure would represent the loss of 4.3 percent of the available forage and $439,040 in grazing permit fees. Cultural resources, including resources of value to Native Americans, could be damaged or destroyed. Vegetation treatments would also temporarily prevent access to some recreational areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0201D, Volume 29, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080066, Final EIS--629 pages and maps, Appendices--498 pages, February 19,2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Birds
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Pocatello Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382566?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE%2C+FUELS%2C+AND+RELATED+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+DIRECTION+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+REGIONAL+ASSESSMENT+FOR+SOUTHEAST%2FSOUTH+CENTRAL+IDAHO.&rft.title=FIRE%2C+FUELS%2C+AND+RELATED+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+DIRECTION+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+REGIONAL+ASSESSMENT+FOR+SOUTHEAST%2FSOUTH+CENTRAL+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 19,2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FIRE, FUELS, AND RELATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT DIRECTION PLAN AMENDMENT, REGIONAL ASSESSMENT FOR SOUTHEAST/SOUTH CENTRAL IDAHO. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - FIRE, FUELS, AND RELATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT DIRECTION PLAN AMENDMENT, REGIONAL ASSESSMENT FOR SOUTHEAST/SOUTH CENTRAL IDAHO.
AN  - 36382358; 13300-080066_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the 12 existing land use plans directing management of the Bureau of Land Management's Upper Snake River District of Idaho is proposed to address fire, fuels, and related vegetation management issues. Currently, many of the vegetation types within the district have altered fire regimes that are not within their historical range of variability. Large and/or severe fires in these vegetation types can threaten people and property as well as the resiliency, integrity, and long-term sustainability of ecosystem components and processes. Fires have been occurring more frequently and burning more severely in some vegetation community types, The invasion of sagebrush steppe by annual grasses, such as cheatgrass and medusahead rye, has substantially increased fine fuel loads in these communities, making them more susceptible to large, frequent, and severe fires. In other plant communities, fires are occurring less frequently than they did historically, causing undesirable changes in plant species composition and structure and an accumulation of hazardous fuels. Key issues identified during scoping include the extent of acreage identified for treatment and impacts on habitat for sage grouse, a federally protected species. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The originally proposed action (Alternative B), would increase the use of vegetation treatments and restoration activities and the use of fire in all plant communities excepting wet/cold conifer, riparian, salt desert shrub, and vegetated rock/lava. Alternative C would implement fire treatment levels to meet the goals of the Cohesive Strategy and the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. Alternative D was developed to determine the appropriate level and kind of treatments within the sagebrush steppe ecosystem to meet the purpose of the proposed action while benefitting sagebrush habitat, sage grouse, and sagebrush-obloigate species. Alternative E, the preferred alternative, would increase the use of vegetation treatments and restoration, as well as the use of fire, in all vegetation communities excepting communities in wet/cold conifer, riparian, salt desert chrub, and rock/lava ecosystems. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would establish fire management guidance, objectives, policies, and management actions that best respond to the need to adjust the vegetation regimes in the district. Wildfire would be reintroduced as a necessary element in the development and maintenance of healthy ecosystems. Hazardous levels of fuel loading would be rectified. Habitat for sage grouse would be protected and enhanced. Aspen, Douglas-fir, juniper, and pinyon pine stands would undergo required control through prescribed fire. The threat of wildfire to human communities in the district would be reduced significantly. Treatment expenditures would funnel $64 million into the local economy over the next 10 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The plan would place aspen and dry conifer stands and mountain shurb communities at risk for the loss of key ecosystem components. Other communities that could be negatively affected include low- and mid-elevation shrub, mountain shrub, and wet/cold conifer. Vegetation treatments would destroy a portion of source habitat, and could result in the loss of some individual communities of endangered plant species. Four human communities would remain at moderate risk for wildland/urban interface fires. Approximately 1.5 million footprint acres would be unavailable to wildlife for portions of the following 10 years, and 28,927 animal unit months of forage would be temporarily unavailable to livestock each year; this latter figure would represent the loss of 4.3 percent of the available forage and $439,040 in grazing permit fees. Cultural resources, including resources of value to Native Americans, could be damaged or destroyed. Vegetation treatments would also temporarily prevent access to some recreational areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0201D, Volume 29, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080066, Final EIS--629 pages and maps, Appendices--498 pages, February 19,2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Birds
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Pocatello Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382358?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE%2C+FUELS%2C+AND+RELATED+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+DIRECTION+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+REGIONAL+ASSESSMENT+FOR+SOUTHEAST%2FSOUTH+CENTRAL+IDAHO.&rft.title=FIRE%2C+FUELS%2C+AND+RELATED+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+DIRECTION+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+REGIONAL+ASSESSMENT+FOR+SOUTHEAST%2FSOUTH+CENTRAL+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 19,2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SNAKE RIVER BIRDS OF PREY NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA, ADA, CANYON, ELMORE, AND OWYHEE COUNTIES, IDAHO. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - SNAKE RIVER BIRDS OF PREY NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA, ADA, CANYON, ELMORE, AND OWYHEE COUNTIES, IDAHO.
AN  - 36382348; 13299-080065_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general resource management plan for the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (NCA) of Ada, Canyon, Elmore, and Owyhee counties, Idaho is proposed. The 483,700-acre NCA in southwestern Idaho was established in 1993 to conserve, protect, and enhance raptor populations and habitats. The NCA contains the greatest concentration of nesting raptors in North America. The cliffs of the Snake River Canyon provide ideal nesting sites, while adjacent upland plateau supports unusually large populations of small mammalian prey. The area also provides training grounds for the Idaho Air National Guard and Army National Guard and land for the Shoshone-Bannock and Shoshone-Paiute tribes. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The current habitat restoration program would be driven primarily by emergency fire rehabilitation processes, resulting in a minimal increase in the acreage of shrub communities. Current uses would be accommodated, but could be moderated based on new laws, regulations, and policies. Alternative B would emphasize the restoration of a moderate amount of raptor and raptor prey habitat in addition to those acres affected by emergency fire rehabilitation and fuels management projects. This alternative would accommodate recreational uses, military operations, and commodity uses that were compatible with the purposes of the NCA. Alternative C would emphasize the restoration and rehabilitation of all non-shrub areas outside the Orchard Training Area to improve raptor and raptor prey habitat. To support this level of habitat restoration, recreational uses and military training would be substantially restricted and livestock grazing would be eliminated. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize the restoration and rehabilitation of all non-shrub areas outside the Orchard Training Area to improve raptor and raptor prey habitat, while imposing only moderate restrictions on recreation, military training, and commercial uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: While continue to effect the mandate establishing the NCA by protecting and enhancing habitat for raptors and raptor prey, the general management plan would ensure appropriate commercial, public and military use of the NCA. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued designation of the area as an NCA would prevent the exploitation of resources that would damage raptor habitat or hunting areas. Management measures, including vegetation manipulations, as well as military training operations, recreational user activities, and exploitative use of the NCA lands would result in disturbance of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and cultural resource sites. User conflicts between recreationists, naturalists, and grazing allotment operators and other exploitative users would increase due to increase visitation and more intensive management. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Public Law 103-64. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0383D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080065, Final EIS--417 pages; Supporting Documents--312 pages, February 19,2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: ID-11-2006-EIS-1740
KW  - Birds
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Military Facilities (Air Force)
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Air Force)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 103-64, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382348?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SNAKE+RIVER+BIRDS+OF+PREY+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+ADA%2C+CANYON%2C+ELMORE%2C+AND+OWYHEE+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=SNAKE+RIVER+BIRDS+OF+PREY+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+ADA%2C+CANYON%2C+ELMORE%2C+AND+OWYHEE+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 19,2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FIRE, FUELS, AND RELATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT DIRECTION PLAN AMENDMENT, REGIONAL ASSESSMENT FOR SOUTHEAST/SOUTH CENTRAL IDAHO. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - FIRE, FUELS, AND RELATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT DIRECTION PLAN AMENDMENT, REGIONAL ASSESSMENT FOR SOUTHEAST/SOUTH CENTRAL IDAHO.
AN  - 36380454; 13300-080066_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the 12 existing land use plans directing management of the Bureau of Land Management's Upper Snake River District of Idaho is proposed to address fire, fuels, and related vegetation management issues. Currently, many of the vegetation types within the district have altered fire regimes that are not within their historical range of variability. Large and/or severe fires in these vegetation types can threaten people and property as well as the resiliency, integrity, and long-term sustainability of ecosystem components and processes. Fires have been occurring more frequently and burning more severely in some vegetation community types, The invasion of sagebrush steppe by annual grasses, such as cheatgrass and medusahead rye, has substantially increased fine fuel loads in these communities, making them more susceptible to large, frequent, and severe fires. In other plant communities, fires are occurring less frequently than they did historically, causing undesirable changes in plant species composition and structure and an accumulation of hazardous fuels. Key issues identified during scoping include the extent of acreage identified for treatment and impacts on habitat for sage grouse, a federally protected species. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The originally proposed action (Alternative B), would increase the use of vegetation treatments and restoration activities and the use of fire in all plant communities excepting wet/cold conifer, riparian, salt desert shrub, and vegetated rock/lava. Alternative C would implement fire treatment levels to meet the goals of the Cohesive Strategy and the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. Alternative D was developed to determine the appropriate level and kind of treatments within the sagebrush steppe ecosystem to meet the purpose of the proposed action while benefitting sagebrush habitat, sage grouse, and sagebrush-obloigate species. Alternative E, the preferred alternative, would increase the use of vegetation treatments and restoration, as well as the use of fire, in all vegetation communities excepting communities in wet/cold conifer, riparian, salt desert chrub, and rock/lava ecosystems. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would establish fire management guidance, objectives, policies, and management actions that best respond to the need to adjust the vegetation regimes in the district. Wildfire would be reintroduced as a necessary element in the development and maintenance of healthy ecosystems. Hazardous levels of fuel loading would be rectified. Habitat for sage grouse would be protected and enhanced. Aspen, Douglas-fir, juniper, and pinyon pine stands would undergo required control through prescribed fire. The threat of wildfire to human communities in the district would be reduced significantly. Treatment expenditures would funnel $64 million into the local economy over the next 10 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The plan would place aspen and dry conifer stands and mountain shurb communities at risk for the loss of key ecosystem components. Other communities that could be negatively affected include low- and mid-elevation shrub, mountain shrub, and wet/cold conifer. Vegetation treatments would destroy a portion of source habitat, and could result in the loss of some individual communities of endangered plant species. Four human communities would remain at moderate risk for wildland/urban interface fires. Approximately 1.5 million footprint acres would be unavailable to wildlife for portions of the following 10 years, and 28,927 animal unit months of forage would be temporarily unavailable to livestock each year; this latter figure would represent the loss of 4.3 percent of the available forage and $439,040 in grazing permit fees. Cultural resources, including resources of value to Native Americans, could be damaged or destroyed. Vegetation treatments would also temporarily prevent access to some recreational areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0201D, Volume 29, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080066, Final EIS--629 pages and maps, Appendices--498 pages, February 19,2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Birds
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Pocatello Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380454?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE%2C+FUELS%2C+AND+RELATED+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+DIRECTION+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+REGIONAL+ASSESSMENT+FOR+SOUTHEAST%2FSOUTH+CENTRAL+IDAHO.&rft.title=FIRE%2C+FUELS%2C+AND+RELATED+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+DIRECTION+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+REGIONAL+ASSESSMENT+FOR+SOUTHEAST%2FSOUTH+CENTRAL+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 19,2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 22 of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36393848; 13298-080064_0022
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 22
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36393848?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 8 of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36392878; 13298-080064_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 8
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392878?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 11 of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36392441; 13298-080064_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 11
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392441?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 21 of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36392361; 13298-080064_0021
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 21
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392361?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 18 of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36383286; 13298-080064_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 18
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383286?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 13 of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36383275; 13298-080064_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 13
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383275?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 14 of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36383188; 13298-080064_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 14
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383188?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080064/080064_0020.txt of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36383162; 13298-080064_0020
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080064/080064_0020.txt
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383162?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 4 of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36383015; 13298-080064_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383015?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 12 of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36382720; 13298-080064_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 12
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382720?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 5 of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36382642; 13298-080064_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382642?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 17 of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36382623; 13298-080064_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 17
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382623?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 6 of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36382553; 13298-080064_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382553?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 16 of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36382519; 13298-080064_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 16
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382519?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 2 of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36382235; 13298-080064_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382235?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36382116; 13298-080064_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382116?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 9 of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36381897; 13298-080064_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 9
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381897?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 3 of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36381861; 13298-080064_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381861?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 19 of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36381187; 13298-080064_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 19
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381187?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 15 of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36381106; 13298-080064_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 15
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381106?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080064/080064_0010.txt of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36378025; 13298-080064_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080064/080064_0010.txt
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378025?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 7 of 22]
T2  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36377916; 13298-080064_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York, currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation), into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0145D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080064, Executive Summary--101 pages, Final EIS (Section 3)--1,276 pages, Final EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A through E--391 pages, Appendix F--812 pages, Appendices G through I--226 pages, Appendices J through L--1,212 pages, Appendix M (I)--1,321 pages, Appendix M (II)--1,678 pages, CD-ROMs (3, February 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36377916?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36410387; 13283
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080049, 877 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36410387?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - M-PIT MINE EXPANSION AT THE MONTANA TUNNELS MINE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA.
AN  - 36409882; 13282
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of state and federal permits to allow the expansion of the M-Pit Mine, operated by Montana Tunnels, Inc., in Jefferson County, Montana is proposed. The mine is located 25 miles south of Helena. The applicant currently mines ore containing gold, zinc, lead, and silver from an open pit mine under Operating Permit 00113, issued by the state of Montana. and Plan of Operations No. MTM 82856, issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Montana Tunnels wishes to expand the existing mine pit to access and mine additional ore resources. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to hydrology, wetlands and waters of the U.S., fisheries and aquatics, wildlife habitat, engineering, socioeconomics, and cultural resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), under which Montana Tunnels would continue to operate the mine under its current permit, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the applicants proposal (Alternative 2), the permit adjustments requested would allow Montana Tunnel to increase the permitted area and depth of the mine pit, expand designated waste rock disposal areas, raise the embankment of the tailings storage facility to increase its capacity, realign a portion of the Jefferson County mine access road, divert the courses of two stream channels, and create new soil stockpiles. The reclamation plan would also be modified to include the routing of additional stormwater into the mine pit to aid flooding of a post-mining pit lake. In addition, Clancy Creek would be diverted around the expanded pit during operations. After mining were completed, a portion of the flow in Clancy Creek adjacent to the mine pit would be diverted into the pit. The post-mining lake would reach equilibrium at 5,625 feet, or about 25 feet below the elevation of Clancy Creek, approximately two centuries after mining ceases. Montana Tunnel would also donate several buildings, including the mill, warehouse and office buildings, laboratory, and two outside storage buildings to the Jefferson Local Development Corporation for post-mining economic development. The BLM has developed a modified version of the applicants proposal (Alternative 3), which is the preferred alternative, to include measures to manage tailings storage facility seepage, control wind-blown dust, create a more natural dendritic drainage pattern on the waste rock storage area, implement a contingency plan and operational geochemical verification program to handle acid-generating waste rock, establish a reconstituted Clancy Creek channel soon after commencing the M-Pit expansion, implement operational and geochemical measures to ensure that Clancy Creek flows do not enter the M-Pit in the future, and implement additional mitigation measures required during operations and reclamation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Adjustment of the permits would allow the applicant to extend operations by five years beyond the current operating plan, to 2013, resulting in the excavation of 24 to 28 million additional tons of ore. Addition of five years to the mine life would add $12.5 million in wage income to the local economy. Seepage from the pit lake, which would not completely fill, would recharge the groundwater aquifer. Seepage from the waste rock would infiltrate to the Spring Creek drainage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, expansion of the pit, waste and tailings storage areas, and ancillary facilities would displace 1,489 acres. Erosion of the pit's highwalls and raveling of material onto benches would occur and slope failures on pit highwalls could occur. The expanded mine would increase the potential for acid generation from ore and waste rock, particularly for materials excavated from depths below 5,100 feet. The pit lake would have elevated concentrations of cadmium, sulfate, and cyanide for approximately 10 years, and manganese levels would exceed federal standards for 200 years. Approximately 1,800 linear feet of alluvium and aquifer associated with Clancy Creek would be excavated and removed, and 3,800 feet of Pen Yan Creek, an ephemeral stream, would be covered with waste rock, requiring that the channel be realigned. Mining would displace 2.6 acres of wetlands, while reclamation activities would disturb 2.13 acres of wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a).
JF  - EPA number: 080048, Executive Summary--34 pages, 747 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-09
KW  - Acids
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Geology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Metals
KW  - Mines
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Tailings
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Waste Disposal
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Butte Resource Management Area
KW  - Montana
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36409882?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=M-PIT+MINE+EXPANSION+AT+THE+MONTANA+TUNNELS+MINE+IN+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=M-PIT+MINE+EXPANSION+AT+THE+MONTANA+TUNNELS+MINE+IN+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Butte, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MONTANA ALBERTA TIE LTD. (MATL) 230-KD TRANSMISSION LINE, CASCADE, TETON, CHOUTEAU, PONDERA, TOOLE, AND GLACIER COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 36408786; 13288
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 203-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line extending from Great Falls, Montana to Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada are proposed by Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL). The transmission line, which would cross the Canadian border north of Cut Bank, Montana, would transmit 300 megawatts (MW) of electric power south of the border and 300 MW north of the border; 130 miles of the line would lie within Montana, the remainder within Alberta. In order to construct and operate the line, MATL must obtain a Presidential permit from the Department of Energy to allow a crossing of the Canadian border as well as a certificate of compliance from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and a rights-of-way grant from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The line would originate at an existing NorthWestern Energy 230-kV switchyard at Great Falls and extend north to a new substation to be constructed northeast of Lethbridge. Two types of transmission line support structures would be used specifically, H-frame structures made of laminated or round wood poles and metal monopoles. The typical span between H-frame structures would extend 800 feet, but would range from 500 to 1,600 feet. MATL would construct a new substation approximately 10 miles south of Cut Bank, next to the proposed McCormick Ranch wind park. The Great Falls switchyard would be expanded to deal with the additional capacity. Construction of the line and ancillary upgrades is expected to require four to six months. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and three alignment alternatives, as well as a number of local routing options, are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transmission line would be the United States' first power transmission interconnection with Alberta and would be expected to facilitate development of additional sources f generation, including windfarms in both Montana and Alberta, as well as improving transmission system reliability in Montana, Alberta, and on a broader regional basis in both the U.S. and Canada. In addition, the project would promote increase cross-border trade in electrical energy and provide a transmission route to balance energy surplus/shortage situations in an efficient and cost-effective manner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives would result in some loss of and interference with agricultural production. Construction activities would exacerbate soil erosion and sedimentation of streams, lakes, and wetlands. Some bird mortality would result from avian collisions with transmission lines and supporting structures. Transmission lines and supporting structures would degrade visual aesthetics along the corridor. Windfarm development based on the availability of transmission capacity would add to the land use displacements and aesthetic degradation. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 91-95) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080054, Draft EIS--768 pages and maps, Reponses to Montana Draft EIS--238 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0399
KW  - Birds
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Reclamation Plans
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Canada
KW  - Montana
KW  - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36408786?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTANA+ALBERTA+TIE+LTD.+%28MATL%29+230-KD+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CASCADE%2C+TETON%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+PONDERA%2C+TOOLE%2C+AND+GLACIER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=MONTANA+ALBERTA+TIE+LTD.+%28MATL%29+230-KD+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CASCADE%2C+TETON%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+PONDERA%2C+TOOLE%2C+AND+GLACIER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Electricity and Energy Reliability, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MONTANA ALBERTA TIE LTD. (MATL) 230-KD TRANSMISSION LINE, CASCADE, TETON, CHOUTEAU, PONDERA, TOOLE, AND GLACIER COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 4 of 5]
T2  - MONTANA ALBERTA TIE LTD. (MATL) 230-KD TRANSMISSION LINE, CASCADE, TETON, CHOUTEAU, PONDERA, TOOLE, AND GLACIER COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 36392799; 13288-080054_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 203-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line extending from Great Falls, Montana to Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada are proposed by Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL). The transmission line, which would cross the Canadian border north of Cut Bank, Montana, would transmit 300 megawatts (MW) of electric power south of the border and 300 MW north of the border; 130 miles of the line would lie within Montana, the remainder within Alberta. In order to construct and operate the line, MATL must obtain a Presidential permit from the Department of Energy to allow a crossing of the Canadian border as well as a certificate of compliance from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and a rights-of-way grant from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The line would originate at an existing NorthWestern Energy 230-kV switchyard at Great Falls and extend north to a new substation to be constructed northeast of Lethbridge. Two types of transmission line support structures would be used specifically, H-frame structures made of laminated or round wood poles and metal monopoles. The typical span between H-frame structures would extend 800 feet, but would range from 500 to 1,600 feet. MATL would construct a new substation approximately 10 miles south of Cut Bank, next to the proposed McCormick Ranch wind park. The Great Falls switchyard would be expanded to deal with the additional capacity. Construction of the line and ancillary upgrades is expected to require four to six months. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and three alignment alternatives, as well as a number of local routing options, are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transmission line would be the United States' first power transmission interconnection with Alberta and would be expected to facilitate development of additional sources f generation, including windfarms in both Montana and Alberta, as well as improving transmission system reliability in Montana, Alberta, and on a broader regional basis in both the U.S. and Canada. In addition, the project would promote increase cross-border trade in electrical energy and provide a transmission route to balance energy surplus/shortage situations in an efficient and cost-effective manner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives would result in some loss of and interference with agricultural production. Construction activities would exacerbate soil erosion and sedimentation of streams, lakes, and wetlands. Some bird mortality would result from avian collisions with transmission lines and supporting structures. Transmission lines and supporting structures would degrade visual aesthetics along the corridor. Windfarm development based on the availability of transmission capacity would add to the land use displacements and aesthetic degradation. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 91-95) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080054, Draft EIS--768 pages and maps, Reponses to Montana Draft EIS--238 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0399
KW  - Birds
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Reclamation Plans
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Canada
KW  - Montana
KW  - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392799?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTANA+ALBERTA+TIE+LTD.+%28MATL%29+230-KD+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CASCADE%2C+TETON%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+PONDERA%2C+TOOLE%2C+AND+GLACIER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=MONTANA+ALBERTA+TIE+LTD.+%28MATL%29+230-KD+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CASCADE%2C+TETON%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+PONDERA%2C+TOOLE%2C+AND+GLACIER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Electricity and Energy Reliability, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MONTANA ALBERTA TIE LTD. (MATL) 230-KD TRANSMISSION LINE, CASCADE, TETON, CHOUTEAU, PONDERA, TOOLE, AND GLACIER COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 3 of 5]
T2  - MONTANA ALBERTA TIE LTD. (MATL) 230-KD TRANSMISSION LINE, CASCADE, TETON, CHOUTEAU, PONDERA, TOOLE, AND GLACIER COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 36392760; 13288-080054_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 203-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line extending from Great Falls, Montana to Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada are proposed by Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL). The transmission line, which would cross the Canadian border north of Cut Bank, Montana, would transmit 300 megawatts (MW) of electric power south of the border and 300 MW north of the border; 130 miles of the line would lie within Montana, the remainder within Alberta. In order to construct and operate the line, MATL must obtain a Presidential permit from the Department of Energy to allow a crossing of the Canadian border as well as a certificate of compliance from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and a rights-of-way grant from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The line would originate at an existing NorthWestern Energy 230-kV switchyard at Great Falls and extend north to a new substation to be constructed northeast of Lethbridge. Two types of transmission line support structures would be used specifically, H-frame structures made of laminated or round wood poles and metal monopoles. The typical span between H-frame structures would extend 800 feet, but would range from 500 to 1,600 feet. MATL would construct a new substation approximately 10 miles south of Cut Bank, next to the proposed McCormick Ranch wind park. The Great Falls switchyard would be expanded to deal with the additional capacity. Construction of the line and ancillary upgrades is expected to require four to six months. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and three alignment alternatives, as well as a number of local routing options, are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transmission line would be the United States' first power transmission interconnection with Alberta and would be expected to facilitate development of additional sources f generation, including windfarms in both Montana and Alberta, as well as improving transmission system reliability in Montana, Alberta, and on a broader regional basis in both the U.S. and Canada. In addition, the project would promote increase cross-border trade in electrical energy and provide a transmission route to balance energy surplus/shortage situations in an efficient and cost-effective manner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives would result in some loss of and interference with agricultural production. Construction activities would exacerbate soil erosion and sedimentation of streams, lakes, and wetlands. Some bird mortality would result from avian collisions with transmission lines and supporting structures. Transmission lines and supporting structures would degrade visual aesthetics along the corridor. Windfarm development based on the availability of transmission capacity would add to the land use displacements and aesthetic degradation. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 91-95) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080054, Draft EIS--768 pages and maps, Reponses to Montana Draft EIS--238 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0399
KW  - Birds
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Reclamation Plans
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Canada
KW  - Montana
KW  - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392760?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTANA+ALBERTA+TIE+LTD.+%28MATL%29+230-KD+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CASCADE%2C+TETON%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+PONDERA%2C+TOOLE%2C+AND+GLACIER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=MONTANA+ALBERTA+TIE+LTD.+%28MATL%29+230-KD+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CASCADE%2C+TETON%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+PONDERA%2C+TOOLE%2C+AND+GLACIER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Electricity and Energy Reliability, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 9 of 13]
T2  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
AN  - 36392696; 13287-080053_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of South Capitol Street from Firth Sterling Avenue Southeast (SE) to Independence Avenue and reconstruction of the Suitland Parkway and from Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE (MLK) to South Capitol Street in the District of Columbia (District) are proposed. The project would include the replacement Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge and the reconfiguration of South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. As the primary corridor in L'Enfants 1791 Plan for the City of Washington, South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city and its monumental core. The thoroughfare currently connects downtown Washington to neighborhoods in the southeast and southwest quadrants of the District and Prince Georges County, Maryland. Currently, the street lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function as a gateway. Present conditions are not appropriate to this important function. South Capitol Street is an urban freeway that has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of residents and businesses in the corridor. The transportation is obsolete, in a deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists. The condition of this important artery is impeding development along the corridor and along the Anacostia River waterfront, where extensive economic development plans are underway. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under either build alternatives, the project would reconstruct South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard; provide at-grade intersections to provide turning movements; replace Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge; reconstruct the bridge carrying I-295 over South Capitol Street; widen the bridge carrying I-295 over Howard Road; and reconstruct portions of Firth Sterling Avenue SE, Howard Road SE, and New Jersey Avenue SE; widen MLK Avenue. Bridge over the Suitland Parkway to provide for a new multi-use trail. Build Alternative 1 would add a ramp connecting southbound Interstate 295 (I-295) to the northbound Suitland Parkway. Build Alternative 2 would replace the existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange with an urban diamond interchange, allowing all movements between the two highways. Estimated construction costs without the new Fredrick Douglass Bridge range from $248 million to $408 million; new bridge costs range from $279 million to $373 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of the affected portions of South Capitol Street and the Suitland Parkway and the associated local roads, as appropriate, would improve transportation safety, mobility, and accessibility along the corridor, thereby enhancing planned economic development in a currently socioeconomically disadvantaged area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build alternative selected, the project would require the development of 57 to 77 acres of rights-of-way, resulting in the displacement, under either alternative, of five commercial units, two industrial warehouses, an auto repair shop, and a heliport. Fifteen or 19 hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers. Only 0.1 acre of wildlife habitat would be lost, along with three live specimen trees. The project would degrade the historic values associated with Suitland Parkway, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080053, Draft EIS--693 pages and maps, Technical Reports--1,542 pages and maps, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 9
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-08-XX-D
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Urban Renewal
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392696?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MONTANA ALBERTA TIE LTD. (MATL) 230-KD TRANSMISSION LINE, CASCADE, TETON, CHOUTEAU, PONDERA, TOOLE, AND GLACIER COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 2 of 5]
T2  - MONTANA ALBERTA TIE LTD. (MATL) 230-KD TRANSMISSION LINE, CASCADE, TETON, CHOUTEAU, PONDERA, TOOLE, AND GLACIER COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 36392674; 13288-080054_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 203-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line extending from Great Falls, Montana to Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada are proposed by Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL). The transmission line, which would cross the Canadian border north of Cut Bank, Montana, would transmit 300 megawatts (MW) of electric power south of the border and 300 MW north of the border; 130 miles of the line would lie within Montana, the remainder within Alberta. In order to construct and operate the line, MATL must obtain a Presidential permit from the Department of Energy to allow a crossing of the Canadian border as well as a certificate of compliance from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and a rights-of-way grant from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The line would originate at an existing NorthWestern Energy 230-kV switchyard at Great Falls and extend north to a new substation to be constructed northeast of Lethbridge. Two types of transmission line support structures would be used specifically, H-frame structures made of laminated or round wood poles and metal monopoles. The typical span between H-frame structures would extend 800 feet, but would range from 500 to 1,600 feet. MATL would construct a new substation approximately 10 miles south of Cut Bank, next to the proposed McCormick Ranch wind park. The Great Falls switchyard would be expanded to deal with the additional capacity. Construction of the line and ancillary upgrades is expected to require four to six months. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and three alignment alternatives, as well as a number of local routing options, are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transmission line would be the United States' first power transmission interconnection with Alberta and would be expected to facilitate development of additional sources f generation, including windfarms in both Montana and Alberta, as well as improving transmission system reliability in Montana, Alberta, and on a broader regional basis in both the U.S. and Canada. In addition, the project would promote increase cross-border trade in electrical energy and provide a transmission route to balance energy surplus/shortage situations in an efficient and cost-effective manner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives would result in some loss of and interference with agricultural production. Construction activities would exacerbate soil erosion and sedimentation of streams, lakes, and wetlands. Some bird mortality would result from avian collisions with transmission lines and supporting structures. Transmission lines and supporting structures would degrade visual aesthetics along the corridor. Windfarm development based on the availability of transmission capacity would add to the land use displacements and aesthetic degradation. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 91-95) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080054, Draft EIS--768 pages and maps, Reponses to Montana Draft EIS--238 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0399
KW  - Birds
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Reclamation Plans
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Canada
KW  - Montana
KW  - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392674?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTANA+ALBERTA+TIE+LTD.+%28MATL%29+230-KD+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CASCADE%2C+TETON%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+PONDERA%2C+TOOLE%2C+AND+GLACIER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=MONTANA+ALBERTA+TIE+LTD.+%28MATL%29+230-KD+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CASCADE%2C+TETON%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+PONDERA%2C+TOOLE%2C+AND+GLACIER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Electricity and Energy Reliability, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 11 of 13]
T2  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
AN  - 36392083; 13287-080053_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of South Capitol Street from Firth Sterling Avenue Southeast (SE) to Independence Avenue and reconstruction of the Suitland Parkway and from Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE (MLK) to South Capitol Street in the District of Columbia (District) are proposed. The project would include the replacement Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge and the reconfiguration of South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. As the primary corridor in L'Enfants 1791 Plan for the City of Washington, South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city and its monumental core. The thoroughfare currently connects downtown Washington to neighborhoods in the southeast and southwest quadrants of the District and Prince Georges County, Maryland. Currently, the street lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function as a gateway. Present conditions are not appropriate to this important function. South Capitol Street is an urban freeway that has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of residents and businesses in the corridor. The transportation is obsolete, in a deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists. The condition of this important artery is impeding development along the corridor and along the Anacostia River waterfront, where extensive economic development plans are underway. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under either build alternatives, the project would reconstruct South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard; provide at-grade intersections to provide turning movements; replace Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge; reconstruct the bridge carrying I-295 over South Capitol Street; widen the bridge carrying I-295 over Howard Road; and reconstruct portions of Firth Sterling Avenue SE, Howard Road SE, and New Jersey Avenue SE; widen MLK Avenue. Bridge over the Suitland Parkway to provide for a new multi-use trail. Build Alternative 1 would add a ramp connecting southbound Interstate 295 (I-295) to the northbound Suitland Parkway. Build Alternative 2 would replace the existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange with an urban diamond interchange, allowing all movements between the two highways. Estimated construction costs without the new Fredrick Douglass Bridge range from $248 million to $408 million; new bridge costs range from $279 million to $373 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of the affected portions of South Capitol Street and the Suitland Parkway and the associated local roads, as appropriate, would improve transportation safety, mobility, and accessibility along the corridor, thereby enhancing planned economic development in a currently socioeconomically disadvantaged area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build alternative selected, the project would require the development of 57 to 77 acres of rights-of-way, resulting in the displacement, under either alternative, of five commercial units, two industrial warehouses, an auto repair shop, and a heliport. Fifteen or 19 hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers. Only 0.1 acre of wildlife habitat would be lost, along with three live specimen trees. The project would degrade the historic values associated with Suitland Parkway, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080053, Draft EIS--693 pages and maps, Technical Reports--1,542 pages and maps, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 11
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-08-XX-D
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Urban Renewal
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392083?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080053/080053_0010.txt of 13]
T2  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
AN  - 36391964; 13287-080053_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of South Capitol Street from Firth Sterling Avenue Southeast (SE) to Independence Avenue and reconstruction of the Suitland Parkway and from Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE (MLK) to South Capitol Street in the District of Columbia (District) are proposed. The project would include the replacement Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge and the reconfiguration of South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. As the primary corridor in L'Enfants 1791 Plan for the City of Washington, South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city and its monumental core. The thoroughfare currently connects downtown Washington to neighborhoods in the southeast and southwest quadrants of the District and Prince Georges County, Maryland. Currently, the street lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function as a gateway. Present conditions are not appropriate to this important function. South Capitol Street is an urban freeway that has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of residents and businesses in the corridor. The transportation is obsolete, in a deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists. The condition of this important artery is impeding development along the corridor and along the Anacostia River waterfront, where extensive economic development plans are underway. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under either build alternatives, the project would reconstruct South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard; provide at-grade intersections to provide turning movements; replace Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge; reconstruct the bridge carrying I-295 over South Capitol Street; widen the bridge carrying I-295 over Howard Road; and reconstruct portions of Firth Sterling Avenue SE, Howard Road SE, and New Jersey Avenue SE; widen MLK Avenue. Bridge over the Suitland Parkway to provide for a new multi-use trail. Build Alternative 1 would add a ramp connecting southbound Interstate 295 (I-295) to the northbound Suitland Parkway. Build Alternative 2 would replace the existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange with an urban diamond interchange, allowing all movements between the two highways. Estimated construction costs without the new Fredrick Douglass Bridge range from $248 million to $408 million; new bridge costs range from $279 million to $373 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of the affected portions of South Capitol Street and the Suitland Parkway and the associated local roads, as appropriate, would improve transportation safety, mobility, and accessibility along the corridor, thereby enhancing planned economic development in a currently socioeconomically disadvantaged area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build alternative selected, the project would require the development of 57 to 77 acres of rights-of-way, resulting in the displacement, under either alternative, of five commercial units, two industrial warehouses, an auto repair shop, and a heliport. Fifteen or 19 hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers. Only 0.1 acre of wildlife habitat would be lost, along with three live specimen trees. The project would degrade the historic values associated with Suitland Parkway, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080053, Draft EIS--693 pages and maps, Technical Reports--1,542 pages and maps, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080053/080053_0010.txt
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-08-XX-D
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Urban Renewal
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391964?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 6 of 7]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36391598; 13283-080049_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080049, 877 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391598?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 7 of 13]
T2  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
AN  - 36391372; 13287-080053_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of South Capitol Street from Firth Sterling Avenue Southeast (SE) to Independence Avenue and reconstruction of the Suitland Parkway and from Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE (MLK) to South Capitol Street in the District of Columbia (District) are proposed. The project would include the replacement Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge and the reconfiguration of South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. As the primary corridor in L'Enfants 1791 Plan for the City of Washington, South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city and its monumental core. The thoroughfare currently connects downtown Washington to neighborhoods in the southeast and southwest quadrants of the District and Prince Georges County, Maryland. Currently, the street lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function as a gateway. Present conditions are not appropriate to this important function. South Capitol Street is an urban freeway that has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of residents and businesses in the corridor. The transportation is obsolete, in a deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists. The condition of this important artery is impeding development along the corridor and along the Anacostia River waterfront, where extensive economic development plans are underway. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under either build alternatives, the project would reconstruct South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard; provide at-grade intersections to provide turning movements; replace Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge; reconstruct the bridge carrying I-295 over South Capitol Street; widen the bridge carrying I-295 over Howard Road; and reconstruct portions of Firth Sterling Avenue SE, Howard Road SE, and New Jersey Avenue SE; widen MLK Avenue. Bridge over the Suitland Parkway to provide for a new multi-use trail. Build Alternative 1 would add a ramp connecting southbound Interstate 295 (I-295) to the northbound Suitland Parkway. Build Alternative 2 would replace the existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange with an urban diamond interchange, allowing all movements between the two highways. Estimated construction costs without the new Fredrick Douglass Bridge range from $248 million to $408 million; new bridge costs range from $279 million to $373 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of the affected portions of South Capitol Street and the Suitland Parkway and the associated local roads, as appropriate, would improve transportation safety, mobility, and accessibility along the corridor, thereby enhancing planned economic development in a currently socioeconomically disadvantaged area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build alternative selected, the project would require the development of 57 to 77 acres of rights-of-way, resulting in the displacement, under either alternative, of five commercial units, two industrial warehouses, an auto repair shop, and a heliport. Fifteen or 19 hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers. Only 0.1 acre of wildlife habitat would be lost, along with three live specimen trees. The project would degrade the historic values associated with Suitland Parkway, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080053, Draft EIS--693 pages and maps, Technical Reports--1,542 pages and maps, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-08-XX-D
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Urban Renewal
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391372?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MONTANA ALBERTA TIE LTD. (MATL) 230-KD TRANSMISSION LINE, CASCADE, TETON, CHOUTEAU, PONDERA, TOOLE, AND GLACIER COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 5]
T2  - MONTANA ALBERTA TIE LTD. (MATL) 230-KD TRANSMISSION LINE, CASCADE, TETON, CHOUTEAU, PONDERA, TOOLE, AND GLACIER COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 36383850; 13288-080054_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 203-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line extending from Great Falls, Montana to Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada are proposed by Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL). The transmission line, which would cross the Canadian border north of Cut Bank, Montana, would transmit 300 megawatts (MW) of electric power south of the border and 300 MW north of the border; 130 miles of the line would lie within Montana, the remainder within Alberta. In order to construct and operate the line, MATL must obtain a Presidential permit from the Department of Energy to allow a crossing of the Canadian border as well as a certificate of compliance from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and a rights-of-way grant from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The line would originate at an existing NorthWestern Energy 230-kV switchyard at Great Falls and extend north to a new substation to be constructed northeast of Lethbridge. Two types of transmission line support structures would be used specifically, H-frame structures made of laminated or round wood poles and metal monopoles. The typical span between H-frame structures would extend 800 feet, but would range from 500 to 1,600 feet. MATL would construct a new substation approximately 10 miles south of Cut Bank, next to the proposed McCormick Ranch wind park. The Great Falls switchyard would be expanded to deal with the additional capacity. Construction of the line and ancillary upgrades is expected to require four to six months. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and three alignment alternatives, as well as a number of local routing options, are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transmission line would be the United States' first power transmission interconnection with Alberta and would be expected to facilitate development of additional sources f generation, including windfarms in both Montana and Alberta, as well as improving transmission system reliability in Montana, Alberta, and on a broader regional basis in both the U.S. and Canada. In addition, the project would promote increase cross-border trade in electrical energy and provide a transmission route to balance energy surplus/shortage situations in an efficient and cost-effective manner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives would result in some loss of and interference with agricultural production. Construction activities would exacerbate soil erosion and sedimentation of streams, lakes, and wetlands. Some bird mortality would result from avian collisions with transmission lines and supporting structures. Transmission lines and supporting structures would degrade visual aesthetics along the corridor. Windfarm development based on the availability of transmission capacity would add to the land use displacements and aesthetic degradation. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 91-95) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080054, Draft EIS--768 pages and maps, Reponses to Montana Draft EIS--238 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0399
KW  - Birds
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Reclamation Plans
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Canada
KW  - Montana
KW  - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383850?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTANA+ALBERTA+TIE+LTD.+%28MATL%29+230-KD+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CASCADE%2C+TETON%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+PONDERA%2C+TOOLE%2C+AND+GLACIER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=MONTANA+ALBERTA+TIE+LTD.+%28MATL%29+230-KD+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CASCADE%2C+TETON%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+PONDERA%2C+TOOLE%2C+AND+GLACIER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Electricity and Energy Reliability, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MONTANA ALBERTA TIE LTD. (MATL) 230-KD TRANSMISSION LINE, CASCADE, TETON, CHOUTEAU, PONDERA, TOOLE, AND GLACIER COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 5 of 5]
T2  - MONTANA ALBERTA TIE LTD. (MATL) 230-KD TRANSMISSION LINE, CASCADE, TETON, CHOUTEAU, PONDERA, TOOLE, AND GLACIER COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 36383522; 13288-080054_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 203-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line extending from Great Falls, Montana to Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada are proposed by Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL). The transmission line, which would cross the Canadian border north of Cut Bank, Montana, would transmit 300 megawatts (MW) of electric power south of the border and 300 MW north of the border; 130 miles of the line would lie within Montana, the remainder within Alberta. In order to construct and operate the line, MATL must obtain a Presidential permit from the Department of Energy to allow a crossing of the Canadian border as well as a certificate of compliance from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and a rights-of-way grant from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The line would originate at an existing NorthWestern Energy 230-kV switchyard at Great Falls and extend north to a new substation to be constructed northeast of Lethbridge. Two types of transmission line support structures would be used specifically, H-frame structures made of laminated or round wood poles and metal monopoles. The typical span between H-frame structures would extend 800 feet, but would range from 500 to 1,600 feet. MATL would construct a new substation approximately 10 miles south of Cut Bank, next to the proposed McCormick Ranch wind park. The Great Falls switchyard would be expanded to deal with the additional capacity. Construction of the line and ancillary upgrades is expected to require four to six months. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and three alignment alternatives, as well as a number of local routing options, are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transmission line would be the United States' first power transmission interconnection with Alberta and would be expected to facilitate development of additional sources f generation, including windfarms in both Montana and Alberta, as well as improving transmission system reliability in Montana, Alberta, and on a broader regional basis in both the U.S. and Canada. In addition, the project would promote increase cross-border trade in electrical energy and provide a transmission route to balance energy surplus/shortage situations in an efficient and cost-effective manner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives would result in some loss of and interference with agricultural production. Construction activities would exacerbate soil erosion and sedimentation of streams, lakes, and wetlands. Some bird mortality would result from avian collisions with transmission lines and supporting structures. Transmission lines and supporting structures would degrade visual aesthetics along the corridor. Windfarm development based on the availability of transmission capacity would add to the land use displacements and aesthetic degradation. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 91-95) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080054, Draft EIS--768 pages and maps, Reponses to Montana Draft EIS--238 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0399
KW  - Birds
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Reclamation Plans
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Canada
KW  - Montana
KW  - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383522?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTANA+ALBERTA+TIE+LTD.+%28MATL%29+230-KD+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CASCADE%2C+TETON%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+PONDERA%2C+TOOLE%2C+AND+GLACIER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=MONTANA+ALBERTA+TIE+LTD.+%28MATL%29+230-KD+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CASCADE%2C+TETON%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+PONDERA%2C+TOOLE%2C+AND+GLACIER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Electricity and Energy Reliability, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 4 of 13]
T2  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
AN  - 36383189; 13287-080053_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of South Capitol Street from Firth Sterling Avenue Southeast (SE) to Independence Avenue and reconstruction of the Suitland Parkway and from Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE (MLK) to South Capitol Street in the District of Columbia (District) are proposed. The project would include the replacement Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge and the reconfiguration of South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. As the primary corridor in L'Enfants 1791 Plan for the City of Washington, South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city and its monumental core. The thoroughfare currently connects downtown Washington to neighborhoods in the southeast and southwest quadrants of the District and Prince Georges County, Maryland. Currently, the street lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function as a gateway. Present conditions are not appropriate to this important function. South Capitol Street is an urban freeway that has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of residents and businesses in the corridor. The transportation is obsolete, in a deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists. The condition of this important artery is impeding development along the corridor and along the Anacostia River waterfront, where extensive economic development plans are underway. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under either build alternatives, the project would reconstruct South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard; provide at-grade intersections to provide turning movements; replace Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge; reconstruct the bridge carrying I-295 over South Capitol Street; widen the bridge carrying I-295 over Howard Road; and reconstruct portions of Firth Sterling Avenue SE, Howard Road SE, and New Jersey Avenue SE; widen MLK Avenue. Bridge over the Suitland Parkway to provide for a new multi-use trail. Build Alternative 1 would add a ramp connecting southbound Interstate 295 (I-295) to the northbound Suitland Parkway. Build Alternative 2 would replace the existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange with an urban diamond interchange, allowing all movements between the two highways. Estimated construction costs without the new Fredrick Douglass Bridge range from $248 million to $408 million; new bridge costs range from $279 million to $373 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of the affected portions of South Capitol Street and the Suitland Parkway and the associated local roads, as appropriate, would improve transportation safety, mobility, and accessibility along the corridor, thereby enhancing planned economic development in a currently socioeconomically disadvantaged area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build alternative selected, the project would require the development of 57 to 77 acres of rights-of-way, resulting in the displacement, under either alternative, of five commercial units, two industrial warehouses, an auto repair shop, and a heliport. Fifteen or 19 hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers. Only 0.1 acre of wildlife habitat would be lost, along with three live specimen trees. The project would degrade the historic values associated with Suitland Parkway, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080053, Draft EIS--693 pages and maps, Technical Reports--1,542 pages and maps, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-08-XX-D
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Urban Renewal
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383189?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 13 of 13]
T2  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
AN  - 36382334; 13287-080053_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of South Capitol Street from Firth Sterling Avenue Southeast (SE) to Independence Avenue and reconstruction of the Suitland Parkway and from Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE (MLK) to South Capitol Street in the District of Columbia (District) are proposed. The project would include the replacement Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge and the reconfiguration of South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. As the primary corridor in L'Enfants 1791 Plan for the City of Washington, South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city and its monumental core. The thoroughfare currently connects downtown Washington to neighborhoods in the southeast and southwest quadrants of the District and Prince Georges County, Maryland. Currently, the street lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function as a gateway. Present conditions are not appropriate to this important function. South Capitol Street is an urban freeway that has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of residents and businesses in the corridor. The transportation is obsolete, in a deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists. The condition of this important artery is impeding development along the corridor and along the Anacostia River waterfront, where extensive economic development plans are underway. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under either build alternatives, the project would reconstruct South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard; provide at-grade intersections to provide turning movements; replace Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge; reconstruct the bridge carrying I-295 over South Capitol Street; widen the bridge carrying I-295 over Howard Road; and reconstruct portions of Firth Sterling Avenue SE, Howard Road SE, and New Jersey Avenue SE; widen MLK Avenue. Bridge over the Suitland Parkway to provide for a new multi-use trail. Build Alternative 1 would add a ramp connecting southbound Interstate 295 (I-295) to the northbound Suitland Parkway. Build Alternative 2 would replace the existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange with an urban diamond interchange, allowing all movements between the two highways. Estimated construction costs without the new Fredrick Douglass Bridge range from $248 million to $408 million; new bridge costs range from $279 million to $373 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of the affected portions of South Capitol Street and the Suitland Parkway and the associated local roads, as appropriate, would improve transportation safety, mobility, and accessibility along the corridor, thereby enhancing planned economic development in a currently socioeconomically disadvantaged area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build alternative selected, the project would require the development of 57 to 77 acres of rights-of-way, resulting in the displacement, under either alternative, of five commercial units, two industrial warehouses, an auto repair shop, and a heliport. Fifteen or 19 hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers. Only 0.1 acre of wildlife habitat would be lost, along with three live specimen trees. The project would degrade the historic values associated with Suitland Parkway, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080053, Draft EIS--693 pages and maps, Technical Reports--1,542 pages and maps, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 13
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-08-XX-D
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Urban Renewal
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382334?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 12 of 13]
T2  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
AN  - 36382329; 13287-080053_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of South Capitol Street from Firth Sterling Avenue Southeast (SE) to Independence Avenue and reconstruction of the Suitland Parkway and from Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE (MLK) to South Capitol Street in the District of Columbia (District) are proposed. The project would include the replacement Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge and the reconfiguration of South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. As the primary corridor in L'Enfants 1791 Plan for the City of Washington, South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city and its monumental core. The thoroughfare currently connects downtown Washington to neighborhoods in the southeast and southwest quadrants of the District and Prince Georges County, Maryland. Currently, the street lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function as a gateway. Present conditions are not appropriate to this important function. South Capitol Street is an urban freeway that has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of residents and businesses in the corridor. The transportation is obsolete, in a deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists. The condition of this important artery is impeding development along the corridor and along the Anacostia River waterfront, where extensive economic development plans are underway. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under either build alternatives, the project would reconstruct South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard; provide at-grade intersections to provide turning movements; replace Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge; reconstruct the bridge carrying I-295 over South Capitol Street; widen the bridge carrying I-295 over Howard Road; and reconstruct portions of Firth Sterling Avenue SE, Howard Road SE, and New Jersey Avenue SE; widen MLK Avenue. Bridge over the Suitland Parkway to provide for a new multi-use trail. Build Alternative 1 would add a ramp connecting southbound Interstate 295 (I-295) to the northbound Suitland Parkway. Build Alternative 2 would replace the existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange with an urban diamond interchange, allowing all movements between the two highways. Estimated construction costs without the new Fredrick Douglass Bridge range from $248 million to $408 million; new bridge costs range from $279 million to $373 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of the affected portions of South Capitol Street and the Suitland Parkway and the associated local roads, as appropriate, would improve transportation safety, mobility, and accessibility along the corridor, thereby enhancing planned economic development in a currently socioeconomically disadvantaged area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build alternative selected, the project would require the development of 57 to 77 acres of rights-of-way, resulting in the displacement, under either alternative, of five commercial units, two industrial warehouses, an auto repair shop, and a heliport. Fifteen or 19 hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers. Only 0.1 acre of wildlife habitat would be lost, along with three live specimen trees. The project would degrade the historic values associated with Suitland Parkway, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080053, Draft EIS--693 pages and maps, Technical Reports--1,542 pages and maps, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 12
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-08-XX-D
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Urban Renewal
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382329?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 5 of 13]
T2  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
AN  - 36382311; 13287-080053_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of South Capitol Street from Firth Sterling Avenue Southeast (SE) to Independence Avenue and reconstruction of the Suitland Parkway and from Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE (MLK) to South Capitol Street in the District of Columbia (District) are proposed. The project would include the replacement Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge and the reconfiguration of South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. As the primary corridor in L'Enfants 1791 Plan for the City of Washington, South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city and its monumental core. The thoroughfare currently connects downtown Washington to neighborhoods in the southeast and southwest quadrants of the District and Prince Georges County, Maryland. Currently, the street lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function as a gateway. Present conditions are not appropriate to this important function. South Capitol Street is an urban freeway that has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of residents and businesses in the corridor. The transportation is obsolete, in a deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists. The condition of this important artery is impeding development along the corridor and along the Anacostia River waterfront, where extensive economic development plans are underway. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under either build alternatives, the project would reconstruct South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard; provide at-grade intersections to provide turning movements; replace Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge; reconstruct the bridge carrying I-295 over South Capitol Street; widen the bridge carrying I-295 over Howard Road; and reconstruct portions of Firth Sterling Avenue SE, Howard Road SE, and New Jersey Avenue SE; widen MLK Avenue. Bridge over the Suitland Parkway to provide for a new multi-use trail. Build Alternative 1 would add a ramp connecting southbound Interstate 295 (I-295) to the northbound Suitland Parkway. Build Alternative 2 would replace the existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange with an urban diamond interchange, allowing all movements between the two highways. Estimated construction costs without the new Fredrick Douglass Bridge range from $248 million to $408 million; new bridge costs range from $279 million to $373 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of the affected portions of South Capitol Street and the Suitland Parkway and the associated local roads, as appropriate, would improve transportation safety, mobility, and accessibility along the corridor, thereby enhancing planned economic development in a currently socioeconomically disadvantaged area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build alternative selected, the project would require the development of 57 to 77 acres of rights-of-way, resulting in the displacement, under either alternative, of five commercial units, two industrial warehouses, an auto repair shop, and a heliport. Fifteen or 19 hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers. Only 0.1 acre of wildlife habitat would be lost, along with three live specimen trees. The project would degrade the historic values associated with Suitland Parkway, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080053, Draft EIS--693 pages and maps, Technical Reports--1,542 pages and maps, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-08-XX-D
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Urban Renewal
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382311?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 7]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36382141; 13283-080049_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080049, 877 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382141?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 5 of 7]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36382056; 13283-080049_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080049, 877 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382056?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 7]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36382043; 13283-080049_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080049, 877 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382043?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - M-PIT MINE EXPANSION AT THE MONTANA TUNNELS MINE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA. [Part 2 of 4]
T2  - M-PIT MINE EXPANSION AT THE MONTANA TUNNELS MINE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA.
AN  - 36381983; 13282-080048_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of state and federal permits to allow the expansion of the M-Pit Mine, operated by Montana Tunnels, Inc., in Jefferson County, Montana is proposed. The mine is located 25 miles south of Helena. The applicant currently mines ore containing gold, zinc, lead, and silver from an open pit mine under Operating Permit 00113, issued by the state of Montana. and Plan of Operations No. MTM 82856, issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Montana Tunnels wishes to expand the existing mine pit to access and mine additional ore resources. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to hydrology, wetlands and waters of the U.S., fisheries and aquatics, wildlife habitat, engineering, socioeconomics, and cultural resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), under which Montana Tunnels would continue to operate the mine under its current permit, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the applicants proposal (Alternative 2), the permit adjustments requested would allow Montana Tunnel to increase the permitted area and depth of the mine pit, expand designated waste rock disposal areas, raise the embankment of the tailings storage facility to increase its capacity, realign a portion of the Jefferson County mine access road, divert the courses of two stream channels, and create new soil stockpiles. The reclamation plan would also be modified to include the routing of additional stormwater into the mine pit to aid flooding of a post-mining pit lake. In addition, Clancy Creek would be diverted around the expanded pit during operations. After mining were completed, a portion of the flow in Clancy Creek adjacent to the mine pit would be diverted into the pit. The post-mining lake would reach equilibrium at 5,625 feet, or about 25 feet below the elevation of Clancy Creek, approximately two centuries after mining ceases. Montana Tunnel would also donate several buildings, including the mill, warehouse and office buildings, laboratory, and two outside storage buildings to the Jefferson Local Development Corporation for post-mining economic development. The BLM has developed a modified version of the applicants proposal (Alternative 3), which is the preferred alternative, to include measures to manage tailings storage facility seepage, control wind-blown dust, create a more natural dendritic drainage pattern on the waste rock storage area, implement a contingency plan and operational geochemical verification program to handle acid-generating waste rock, establish a reconstituted Clancy Creek channel soon after commencing the M-Pit expansion, implement operational and geochemical measures to ensure that Clancy Creek flows do not enter the M-Pit in the future, and implement additional mitigation measures required during operations and reclamation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Adjustment of the permits would allow the applicant to extend operations by five years beyond the current operating plan, to 2013, resulting in the excavation of 24 to 28 million additional tons of ore. Addition of five years to the mine life would add $12.5 million in wage income to the local economy. Seepage from the pit lake, which would not completely fill, would recharge the groundwater aquifer. Seepage from the waste rock would infiltrate to the Spring Creek drainage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, expansion of the pit, waste and tailings storage areas, and ancillary facilities would displace 1,489 acres. Erosion of the pit's highwalls and raveling of material onto benches would occur and slope failures on pit highwalls could occur. The expanded mine would increase the potential for acid generation from ore and waste rock, particularly for materials excavated from depths below 5,100 feet. The pit lake would have elevated concentrations of cadmium, sulfate, and cyanide for approximately 10 years, and manganese levels would exceed federal standards for 200 years. Approximately 1,800 linear feet of alluvium and aquifer associated with Clancy Creek would be excavated and removed, and 3,800 feet of Pen Yan Creek, an ephemeral stream, would be covered with waste rock, requiring that the channel be realigned. Mining would displace 2.6 acres of wetlands, while reclamation activities would disturb 2.13 acres of wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a).
JF  - EPA number: 080048, Executive Summary--34 pages, 747 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-09
KW  - Acids
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Geology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Metals
KW  - Mines
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Tailings
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Waste Disposal
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Butte Resource Management Area
KW  - Montana
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381983?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=M-PIT+MINE+EXPANSION+AT+THE+MONTANA+TUNNELS+MINE+IN+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=M-PIT+MINE+EXPANSION+AT+THE+MONTANA+TUNNELS+MINE+IN+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Butte, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 7 of 7]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36381691; 13283-080049_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080049, 877 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381691?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 4 of 7]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36381623; 13283-080049_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080049, 877 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381623?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - M-PIT MINE EXPANSION AT THE MONTANA TUNNELS MINE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA. [Part 4 of 4]
T2  - M-PIT MINE EXPANSION AT THE MONTANA TUNNELS MINE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA.
AN  - 36381577; 13282-080048_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of state and federal permits to allow the expansion of the M-Pit Mine, operated by Montana Tunnels, Inc., in Jefferson County, Montana is proposed. The mine is located 25 miles south of Helena. The applicant currently mines ore containing gold, zinc, lead, and silver from an open pit mine under Operating Permit 00113, issued by the state of Montana. and Plan of Operations No. MTM 82856, issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Montana Tunnels wishes to expand the existing mine pit to access and mine additional ore resources. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to hydrology, wetlands and waters of the U.S., fisheries and aquatics, wildlife habitat, engineering, socioeconomics, and cultural resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), under which Montana Tunnels would continue to operate the mine under its current permit, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the applicants proposal (Alternative 2), the permit adjustments requested would allow Montana Tunnel to increase the permitted area and depth of the mine pit, expand designated waste rock disposal areas, raise the embankment of the tailings storage facility to increase its capacity, realign a portion of the Jefferson County mine access road, divert the courses of two stream channels, and create new soil stockpiles. The reclamation plan would also be modified to include the routing of additional stormwater into the mine pit to aid flooding of a post-mining pit lake. In addition, Clancy Creek would be diverted around the expanded pit during operations. After mining were completed, a portion of the flow in Clancy Creek adjacent to the mine pit would be diverted into the pit. The post-mining lake would reach equilibrium at 5,625 feet, or about 25 feet below the elevation of Clancy Creek, approximately two centuries after mining ceases. Montana Tunnel would also donate several buildings, including the mill, warehouse and office buildings, laboratory, and two outside storage buildings to the Jefferson Local Development Corporation for post-mining economic development. The BLM has developed a modified version of the applicants proposal (Alternative 3), which is the preferred alternative, to include measures to manage tailings storage facility seepage, control wind-blown dust, create a more natural dendritic drainage pattern on the waste rock storage area, implement a contingency plan and operational geochemical verification program to handle acid-generating waste rock, establish a reconstituted Clancy Creek channel soon after commencing the M-Pit expansion, implement operational and geochemical measures to ensure that Clancy Creek flows do not enter the M-Pit in the future, and implement additional mitigation measures required during operations and reclamation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Adjustment of the permits would allow the applicant to extend operations by five years beyond the current operating plan, to 2013, resulting in the excavation of 24 to 28 million additional tons of ore. Addition of five years to the mine life would add $12.5 million in wage income to the local economy. Seepage from the pit lake, which would not completely fill, would recharge the groundwater aquifer. Seepage from the waste rock would infiltrate to the Spring Creek drainage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, expansion of the pit, waste and tailings storage areas, and ancillary facilities would displace 1,489 acres. Erosion of the pit's highwalls and raveling of material onto benches would occur and slope failures on pit highwalls could occur. The expanded mine would increase the potential for acid generation from ore and waste rock, particularly for materials excavated from depths below 5,100 feet. The pit lake would have elevated concentrations of cadmium, sulfate, and cyanide for approximately 10 years, and manganese levels would exceed federal standards for 200 years. Approximately 1,800 linear feet of alluvium and aquifer associated with Clancy Creek would be excavated and removed, and 3,800 feet of Pen Yan Creek, an ephemeral stream, would be covered with waste rock, requiring that the channel be realigned. Mining would displace 2.6 acres of wetlands, while reclamation activities would disturb 2.13 acres of wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a).
JF  - EPA number: 080048, Executive Summary--34 pages, 747 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-09
KW  - Acids
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Geology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Metals
KW  - Mines
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Tailings
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Waste Disposal
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Butte Resource Management Area
KW  - Montana
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381577?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=M-PIT+MINE+EXPANSION+AT+THE+MONTANA+TUNNELS+MINE+IN+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=M-PIT+MINE+EXPANSION+AT+THE+MONTANA+TUNNELS+MINE+IN+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Butte, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 7]
T2  - MIDCONTINENT EXPRESS PIPELINE PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS.
AN  - 36381417; 13283-080049_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Midcontinent Express Pipeline, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas is proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC (MEP). Key topics addressed in this EIS process include those related to geology, soils, water use and quality, vegetation and wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreational and special use areas, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air and noise pollution, system reliability and safety, and cumulative impacts. Under the proposed action, MEP would construct and operate 504.3 miles of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch pipeline from Bryan County, Oklahoma to a terminus in Choctaw County, Alabama; 4.1 miles of 16-inch lateral pipeline in Richland and Madison parishes and Louisiana. Ancillary facilities would include installation of a total of 111,720 horsepower of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor stations; 13 new metering and regulating stations; and other appurtenant facilities, including mainline valves and pig launcher and receiver facilities. The pipeline facilities would interconnect with as many as 13 natural gas pipelines owned by numerous operators. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, a system alternative, major route alternatives, and route variations POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day from production fields in eastern Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to market hubs servicing the eastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 8,394 acres of wetlands, upland vegetation, and the associated soils, and 3,148 acres would remain within the permanent pipeline rights-of-way and within the sites of aboveground facilities. Farmland, forest, including timberland, and special-use areas, including recreation areas and preserves. A total of 1,027 surface waterbodies, ranging from small intermittent streams to a Mississippi River crossing exceeding 2,700 feet in length, would be affected temporarily. The project would affect 378 wetlands, disturbing or displacing 308.4 acres. Specials status wetlands, including several extensive and high-quality cypress-tupelo forested wetlands would be disturbed or displaced. Habitat of 21 federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species would be traversed and displaced. Ground surveys to date have indicated that the one archaeologic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and 11 potentially eligible archaeologic sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080049, 877 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0220D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381417?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MIDCONTINENT+EXPRESS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+TEXAS.&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: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 3 of 13]
T2  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
AN  - 36380320; 13287-080053_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of South Capitol Street from Firth Sterling Avenue Southeast (SE) to Independence Avenue and reconstruction of the Suitland Parkway and from Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE (MLK) to South Capitol Street in the District of Columbia (District) are proposed. The project would include the replacement Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge and the reconfiguration of South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. As the primary corridor in L'Enfants 1791 Plan for the City of Washington, South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city and its monumental core. The thoroughfare currently connects downtown Washington to neighborhoods in the southeast and southwest quadrants of the District and Prince Georges County, Maryland. Currently, the street lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function as a gateway. Present conditions are not appropriate to this important function. South Capitol Street is an urban freeway that has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of residents and businesses in the corridor. The transportation is obsolete, in a deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists. The condition of this important artery is impeding development along the corridor and along the Anacostia River waterfront, where extensive economic development plans are underway. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under either build alternatives, the project would reconstruct South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard; provide at-grade intersections to provide turning movements; replace Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge; reconstruct the bridge carrying I-295 over South Capitol Street; widen the bridge carrying I-295 over Howard Road; and reconstruct portions of Firth Sterling Avenue SE, Howard Road SE, and New Jersey Avenue SE; widen MLK Avenue. Bridge over the Suitland Parkway to provide for a new multi-use trail. Build Alternative 1 would add a ramp connecting southbound Interstate 295 (I-295) to the northbound Suitland Parkway. Build Alternative 2 would replace the existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange with an urban diamond interchange, allowing all movements between the two highways. Estimated construction costs without the new Fredrick Douglass Bridge range from $248 million to $408 million; new bridge costs range from $279 million to $373 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of the affected portions of South Capitol Street and the Suitland Parkway and the associated local roads, as appropriate, would improve transportation safety, mobility, and accessibility along the corridor, thereby enhancing planned economic development in a currently socioeconomically disadvantaged area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build alternative selected, the project would require the development of 57 to 77 acres of rights-of-way, resulting in the displacement, under either alternative, of five commercial units, two industrial warehouses, an auto repair shop, and a heliport. Fifteen or 19 hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers. Only 0.1 acre of wildlife habitat would be lost, along with three live specimen trees. The project would degrade the historic values associated with Suitland Parkway, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080053, Draft EIS--693 pages and maps, Technical Reports--1,542 pages and maps, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-08-XX-D
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Urban Renewal
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380320?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 1 of 13]
T2  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
AN  - 36380254; 13287-080053_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of South Capitol Street from Firth Sterling Avenue Southeast (SE) to Independence Avenue and reconstruction of the Suitland Parkway and from Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE (MLK) to South Capitol Street in the District of Columbia (District) are proposed. The project would include the replacement Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge and the reconfiguration of South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. As the primary corridor in L'Enfants 1791 Plan for the City of Washington, South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city and its monumental core. The thoroughfare currently connects downtown Washington to neighborhoods in the southeast and southwest quadrants of the District and Prince Georges County, Maryland. Currently, the street lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function as a gateway. Present conditions are not appropriate to this important function. South Capitol Street is an urban freeway that has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of residents and businesses in the corridor. The transportation is obsolete, in a deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists. The condition of this important artery is impeding development along the corridor and along the Anacostia River waterfront, where extensive economic development plans are underway. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under either build alternatives, the project would reconstruct South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard; provide at-grade intersections to provide turning movements; replace Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge; reconstruct the bridge carrying I-295 over South Capitol Street; widen the bridge carrying I-295 over Howard Road; and reconstruct portions of Firth Sterling Avenue SE, Howard Road SE, and New Jersey Avenue SE; widen MLK Avenue. Bridge over the Suitland Parkway to provide for a new multi-use trail. Build Alternative 1 would add a ramp connecting southbound Interstate 295 (I-295) to the northbound Suitland Parkway. Build Alternative 2 would replace the existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange with an urban diamond interchange, allowing all movements between the two highways. Estimated construction costs without the new Fredrick Douglass Bridge range from $248 million to $408 million; new bridge costs range from $279 million to $373 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of the affected portions of South Capitol Street and the Suitland Parkway and the associated local roads, as appropriate, would improve transportation safety, mobility, and accessibility along the corridor, thereby enhancing planned economic development in a currently socioeconomically disadvantaged area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build alternative selected, the project would require the development of 57 to 77 acres of rights-of-way, resulting in the displacement, under either alternative, of five commercial units, two industrial warehouses, an auto repair shop, and a heliport. Fifteen or 19 hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers. Only 0.1 acre of wildlife habitat would be lost, along with three live specimen trees. The project would degrade the historic values associated with Suitland Parkway, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080053, Draft EIS--693 pages and maps, Technical Reports--1,542 pages and maps, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-08-XX-D
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Urban Renewal
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380254?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - M-PIT MINE EXPANSION AT THE MONTANA TUNNELS MINE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA. [Part 3 of 4]
T2  - M-PIT MINE EXPANSION AT THE MONTANA TUNNELS MINE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA.
AN  - 36380141; 13282-080048_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of state and federal permits to allow the expansion of the M-Pit Mine, operated by Montana Tunnels, Inc., in Jefferson County, Montana is proposed. The mine is located 25 miles south of Helena. The applicant currently mines ore containing gold, zinc, lead, and silver from an open pit mine under Operating Permit 00113, issued by the state of Montana. and Plan of Operations No. MTM 82856, issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Montana Tunnels wishes to expand the existing mine pit to access and mine additional ore resources. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to hydrology, wetlands and waters of the U.S., fisheries and aquatics, wildlife habitat, engineering, socioeconomics, and cultural resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), under which Montana Tunnels would continue to operate the mine under its current permit, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the applicants proposal (Alternative 2), the permit adjustments requested would allow Montana Tunnel to increase the permitted area and depth of the mine pit, expand designated waste rock disposal areas, raise the embankment of the tailings storage facility to increase its capacity, realign a portion of the Jefferson County mine access road, divert the courses of two stream channels, and create new soil stockpiles. The reclamation plan would also be modified to include the routing of additional stormwater into the mine pit to aid flooding of a post-mining pit lake. In addition, Clancy Creek would be diverted around the expanded pit during operations. After mining were completed, a portion of the flow in Clancy Creek adjacent to the mine pit would be diverted into the pit. The post-mining lake would reach equilibrium at 5,625 feet, or about 25 feet below the elevation of Clancy Creek, approximately two centuries after mining ceases. Montana Tunnel would also donate several buildings, including the mill, warehouse and office buildings, laboratory, and two outside storage buildings to the Jefferson Local Development Corporation for post-mining economic development. The BLM has developed a modified version of the applicants proposal (Alternative 3), which is the preferred alternative, to include measures to manage tailings storage facility seepage, control wind-blown dust, create a more natural dendritic drainage pattern on the waste rock storage area, implement a contingency plan and operational geochemical verification program to handle acid-generating waste rock, establish a reconstituted Clancy Creek channel soon after commencing the M-Pit expansion, implement operational and geochemical measures to ensure that Clancy Creek flows do not enter the M-Pit in the future, and implement additional mitigation measures required during operations and reclamation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Adjustment of the permits would allow the applicant to extend operations by five years beyond the current operating plan, to 2013, resulting in the excavation of 24 to 28 million additional tons of ore. Addition of five years to the mine life would add $12.5 million in wage income to the local economy. Seepage from the pit lake, which would not completely fill, would recharge the groundwater aquifer. Seepage from the waste rock would infiltrate to the Spring Creek drainage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, expansion of the pit, waste and tailings storage areas, and ancillary facilities would displace 1,489 acres. Erosion of the pit's highwalls and raveling of material onto benches would occur and slope failures on pit highwalls could occur. The expanded mine would increase the potential for acid generation from ore and waste rock, particularly for materials excavated from depths below 5,100 feet. The pit lake would have elevated concentrations of cadmium, sulfate, and cyanide for approximately 10 years, and manganese levels would exceed federal standards for 200 years. Approximately 1,800 linear feet of alluvium and aquifer associated with Clancy Creek would be excavated and removed, and 3,800 feet of Pen Yan Creek, an ephemeral stream, would be covered with waste rock, requiring that the channel be realigned. Mining would displace 2.6 acres of wetlands, while reclamation activities would disturb 2.13 acres of wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a).
JF  - EPA number: 080048, Executive Summary--34 pages, 747 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-09
KW  - Acids
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Geology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Metals
KW  - Mines
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Tailings
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Waste Disposal
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Butte Resource Management Area
KW  - Montana
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380141?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=M-PIT+MINE+EXPANSION+AT+THE+MONTANA+TUNNELS+MINE+IN+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=M-PIT+MINE+EXPANSION+AT+THE+MONTANA+TUNNELS+MINE+IN+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Butte, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 6 of 13]
T2  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
AN  - 36375238; 13287-080053_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of South Capitol Street from Firth Sterling Avenue Southeast (SE) to Independence Avenue and reconstruction of the Suitland Parkway and from Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE (MLK) to South Capitol Street in the District of Columbia (District) are proposed. The project would include the replacement Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge and the reconfiguration of South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. As the primary corridor in L'Enfants 1791 Plan for the City of Washington, South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city and its monumental core. The thoroughfare currently connects downtown Washington to neighborhoods in the southeast and southwest quadrants of the District and Prince Georges County, Maryland. Currently, the street lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function as a gateway. Present conditions are not appropriate to this important function. South Capitol Street is an urban freeway that has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of residents and businesses in the corridor. The transportation is obsolete, in a deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists. The condition of this important artery is impeding development along the corridor and along the Anacostia River waterfront, where extensive economic development plans are underway. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under either build alternatives, the project would reconstruct South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard; provide at-grade intersections to provide turning movements; replace Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge; reconstruct the bridge carrying I-295 over South Capitol Street; widen the bridge carrying I-295 over Howard Road; and reconstruct portions of Firth Sterling Avenue SE, Howard Road SE, and New Jersey Avenue SE; widen MLK Avenue. Bridge over the Suitland Parkway to provide for a new multi-use trail. Build Alternative 1 would add a ramp connecting southbound Interstate 295 (I-295) to the northbound Suitland Parkway. Build Alternative 2 would replace the existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange with an urban diamond interchange, allowing all movements between the two highways. Estimated construction costs without the new Fredrick Douglass Bridge range from $248 million to $408 million; new bridge costs range from $279 million to $373 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of the affected portions of South Capitol Street and the Suitland Parkway and the associated local roads, as appropriate, would improve transportation safety, mobility, and accessibility along the corridor, thereby enhancing planned economic development in a currently socioeconomically disadvantaged area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build alternative selected, the project would require the development of 57 to 77 acres of rights-of-way, resulting in the displacement, under either alternative, of five commercial units, two industrial warehouses, an auto repair shop, and a heliport. Fifteen or 19 hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers. Only 0.1 acre of wildlife habitat would be lost, along with three live specimen trees. The project would degrade the historic values associated with Suitland Parkway, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080053, Draft EIS--693 pages and maps, Technical Reports--1,542 pages and maps, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-08-XX-D
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Urban Renewal
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375238?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 2 of 13]
T2  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
AN  - 36375177; 13287-080053_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of South Capitol Street from Firth Sterling Avenue Southeast (SE) to Independence Avenue and reconstruction of the Suitland Parkway and from Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE (MLK) to South Capitol Street in the District of Columbia (District) are proposed. The project would include the replacement Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge and the reconfiguration of South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. As the primary corridor in L'Enfants 1791 Plan for the City of Washington, South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city and its monumental core. The thoroughfare currently connects downtown Washington to neighborhoods in the southeast and southwest quadrants of the District and Prince Georges County, Maryland. Currently, the street lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function as a gateway. Present conditions are not appropriate to this important function. South Capitol Street is an urban freeway that has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of residents and businesses in the corridor. The transportation is obsolete, in a deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists. The condition of this important artery is impeding development along the corridor and along the Anacostia River waterfront, where extensive economic development plans are underway. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under either build alternatives, the project would reconstruct South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard; provide at-grade intersections to provide turning movements; replace Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge; reconstruct the bridge carrying I-295 over South Capitol Street; widen the bridge carrying I-295 over Howard Road; and reconstruct portions of Firth Sterling Avenue SE, Howard Road SE, and New Jersey Avenue SE; widen MLK Avenue. Bridge over the Suitland Parkway to provide for a new multi-use trail. Build Alternative 1 would add a ramp connecting southbound Interstate 295 (I-295) to the northbound Suitland Parkway. Build Alternative 2 would replace the existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange with an urban diamond interchange, allowing all movements between the two highways. Estimated construction costs without the new Fredrick Douglass Bridge range from $248 million to $408 million; new bridge costs range from $279 million to $373 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of the affected portions of South Capitol Street and the Suitland Parkway and the associated local roads, as appropriate, would improve transportation safety, mobility, and accessibility along the corridor, thereby enhancing planned economic development in a currently socioeconomically disadvantaged area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build alternative selected, the project would require the development of 57 to 77 acres of rights-of-way, resulting in the displacement, under either alternative, of five commercial units, two industrial warehouses, an auto repair shop, and a heliport. Fifteen or 19 hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers. Only 0.1 acre of wildlife habitat would be lost, along with three live specimen trees. The project would degrade the historic values associated with Suitland Parkway, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080053, Draft EIS--693 pages and maps, Technical Reports--1,542 pages and maps, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-08-XX-D
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Urban Renewal
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375177?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - M-PIT MINE EXPANSION AT THE MONTANA TUNNELS MINE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 4]
T2  - M-PIT MINE EXPANSION AT THE MONTANA TUNNELS MINE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA.
AN  - 36375013; 13282-080048_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of state and federal permits to allow the expansion of the M-Pit Mine, operated by Montana Tunnels, Inc., in Jefferson County, Montana is proposed. The mine is located 25 miles south of Helena. The applicant currently mines ore containing gold, zinc, lead, and silver from an open pit mine under Operating Permit 00113, issued by the state of Montana. and Plan of Operations No. MTM 82856, issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Montana Tunnels wishes to expand the existing mine pit to access and mine additional ore resources. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to hydrology, wetlands and waters of the U.S., fisheries and aquatics, wildlife habitat, engineering, socioeconomics, and cultural resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), under which Montana Tunnels would continue to operate the mine under its current permit, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the applicants proposal (Alternative 2), the permit adjustments requested would allow Montana Tunnel to increase the permitted area and depth of the mine pit, expand designated waste rock disposal areas, raise the embankment of the tailings storage facility to increase its capacity, realign a portion of the Jefferson County mine access road, divert the courses of two stream channels, and create new soil stockpiles. The reclamation plan would also be modified to include the routing of additional stormwater into the mine pit to aid flooding of a post-mining pit lake. In addition, Clancy Creek would be diverted around the expanded pit during operations. After mining were completed, a portion of the flow in Clancy Creek adjacent to the mine pit would be diverted into the pit. The post-mining lake would reach equilibrium at 5,625 feet, or about 25 feet below the elevation of Clancy Creek, approximately two centuries after mining ceases. Montana Tunnel would also donate several buildings, including the mill, warehouse and office buildings, laboratory, and two outside storage buildings to the Jefferson Local Development Corporation for post-mining economic development. The BLM has developed a modified version of the applicants proposal (Alternative 3), which is the preferred alternative, to include measures to manage tailings storage facility seepage, control wind-blown dust, create a more natural dendritic drainage pattern on the waste rock storage area, implement a contingency plan and operational geochemical verification program to handle acid-generating waste rock, establish a reconstituted Clancy Creek channel soon after commencing the M-Pit expansion, implement operational and geochemical measures to ensure that Clancy Creek flows do not enter the M-Pit in the future, and implement additional mitigation measures required during operations and reclamation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Adjustment of the permits would allow the applicant to extend operations by five years beyond the current operating plan, to 2013, resulting in the excavation of 24 to 28 million additional tons of ore. Addition of five years to the mine life would add $12.5 million in wage income to the local economy. Seepage from the pit lake, which would not completely fill, would recharge the groundwater aquifer. Seepage from the waste rock would infiltrate to the Spring Creek drainage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, expansion of the pit, waste and tailings storage areas, and ancillary facilities would displace 1,489 acres. Erosion of the pit's highwalls and raveling of material onto benches would occur and slope failures on pit highwalls could occur. The expanded mine would increase the potential for acid generation from ore and waste rock, particularly for materials excavated from depths below 5,100 feet. The pit lake would have elevated concentrations of cadmium, sulfate, and cyanide for approximately 10 years, and manganese levels would exceed federal standards for 200 years. Approximately 1,800 linear feet of alluvium and aquifer associated with Clancy Creek would be excavated and removed, and 3,800 feet of Pen Yan Creek, an ephemeral stream, would be covered with waste rock, requiring that the channel be realigned. Mining would displace 2.6 acres of wetlands, while reclamation activities would disturb 2.13 acres of wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a).
JF  - EPA number: 080048, Executive Summary--34 pages, 747 pages, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-09
KW  - Acids
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Geology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Metals
KW  - Mines
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Tailings
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Waste Disposal
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Butte Resource Management Area
KW  - Montana
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375013?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=M-PIT+MINE+EXPANSION+AT+THE+MONTANA+TUNNELS+MINE+IN+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=M-PIT+MINE+EXPANSION+AT+THE+MONTANA+TUNNELS+MINE+IN+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Butte, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, INDEPENDENCE AVENUE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AVENUE, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
AN  - 16376951; 13287
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of South Capitol Street from Firth Sterling Avenue Southeast (SE) to Independence Avenue and reconstruction of the Suitland Parkway and from Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE (MLK) to South Capitol Street in the District of Columbia (District) are proposed. The project would include the replacement Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge and the reconfiguration of South Capitol Street as an urban boulevard providing a grand, scenic gateway to the nation's capital. As the primary corridor in L'Enfants 1791 Plan for the City of Washington, South Capitol Street was envisioned as one of the symbolic gateways to the city and its monumental core. The thoroughfare currently connects downtown Washington to neighborhoods in the southeast and southwest quadrants of the District and Prince Georges County, Maryland. Currently, the street lacks any characteristics of its historic and intended function as a gateway. Present conditions are not appropriate to this important function. South Capitol Street is an urban freeway that has become a conduit for through traffic at the expense of serving the needs of residents and businesses in the corridor. The transportation is obsolete, in a deteriorating condition, and fails to provide necessary connections to community destinations for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists. The condition of this important artery is impeding development along the corridor and along the Anacostia River waterfront, where extensive economic development plans are underway. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under either build alternatives, the project would reconstruct South Capitol Street as a six-lane boulevard; provide at-grade intersections to provide turning movements; replace Fredrick Douglass Memorial Bridge; reconstruct the bridge carrying I-295 over South Capitol Street; widen the bridge carrying I-295 over Howard Road; and reconstruct portions of Firth Sterling Avenue SE, Howard Road SE, and New Jersey Avenue SE; widen MLK Avenue. Bridge over the Suitland Parkway to provide for a new multi-use trail. Build Alternative 1 would add a ramp connecting southbound Interstate 295 (I-295) to the northbound Suitland Parkway. Build Alternative 2 would replace the existing Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange with an urban diamond interchange, allowing all movements between the two highways. Estimated construction costs without the new Fredrick Douglass Bridge range from $248 million to $408 million; new bridge costs range from $279 million to $373 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of the affected portions of South Capitol Street and the Suitland Parkway and the associated local roads, as appropriate, would improve transportation safety, mobility, and accessibility along the corridor, thereby enhancing planned economic development in a currently socioeconomically disadvantaged area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build alternative selected, the project would require the development of 57 to 77 acres of rights-of-way, resulting in the displacement, under either alternative, of five commercial units, two industrial warehouses, an auto repair shop, and a heliport. Fifteen or 19 hazardous waste sites would be encountered by construction workers. Only 0.1 acre of wildlife habitat would be lost, along with three live specimen trees. The project would degrade the historic values associated with Suitland Parkway, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080053, Draft EIS--693 pages and maps, Technical Reports--1,542 pages and maps, February 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-08-XX-D
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Urban Renewal
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16376951?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+CAPITOL+STREET%2C+INDEPENDENCE+AVENUE+TO+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING%2C+JR.+AVENUE%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON.
AN  - 36423969; 13278
AB  - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon to the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon is proposed to allow the tribal trust to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious financial difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues and shrinking tribal budgets against a backdrop of a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks; the entire 60-acre site would lie within the port. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles via a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue casino operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino. The other two action alternatives under consideration are 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26 POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs by 2011 and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust-and-fee lands, which within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080044, Volume 1--680 pages, Volume 2--599 pages, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36423969?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36412869; 13279
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and the associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds for project development and operation. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to be provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, which rely heavily on federal and state government social service. five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces with a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland soils a t the site. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-yera floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below of site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site itself would result in increased pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress of available infrastructure; this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638).
JF  - EPA number: 080045, Draft EIS (Volume I)--877 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)-1,365 pages, Appendices (Volume III)-387 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)-863 pages and maps, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36412869?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 17]
T2  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36391246; 13279-080045_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and the associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds for project development and operation. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to be provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, which rely heavily on federal and state government social service. five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces with a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland soils a t the site. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-yera floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below of site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site itself would result in increased pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress of available infrastructure; this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638).
JF  - EPA number: 080045, Draft EIS (Volume I)--877 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)-1,365 pages, Appendices (Volume III)-387 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)-863 pages and maps, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391246?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 17]
T2  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36391244; 13279-080045_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and the associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds for project development and operation. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to be provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, which rely heavily on federal and state government social service. five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces with a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland soils a t the site. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-yera floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below of site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site itself would result in increased pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress of available infrastructure; this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638).
JF  - EPA number: 080045, Draft EIS (Volume I)--877 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)-1,365 pages, Appendices (Volume III)-387 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)-863 pages and maps, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 16
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391244?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 17]
T2  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36391133; 13279-080045_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and the associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds for project development and operation. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to be provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, which rely heavily on federal and state government social service. five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces with a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland soils a t the site. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-yera floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below of site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site itself would result in increased pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress of available infrastructure; this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638).
JF  - EPA number: 080045, Draft EIS (Volume I)--877 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)-1,365 pages, Appendices (Volume III)-387 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)-863 pages and maps, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 14
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391133?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 3 of 6]
T2  - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON.
AN  - 36390974; 13278-080044_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon to the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon is proposed to allow the tribal trust to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious financial difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues and shrinking tribal budgets against a backdrop of a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks; the entire 60-acre site would lie within the port. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles via a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue casino operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino. The other two action alternatives under consideration are 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26 POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs by 2011 and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust-and-fee lands, which within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080044, Volume 1--680 pages, Volume 2--599 pages, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390974?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 17]
T2  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36390947; 13279-080045_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and the associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds for project development and operation. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to be provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, which rely heavily on federal and state government social service. five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces with a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland soils a t the site. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-yera floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below of site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site itself would result in increased pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress of available infrastructure; this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638).
JF  - EPA number: 080045, Draft EIS (Volume I)--877 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)-1,365 pages, Appendices (Volume III)-387 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)-863 pages and maps, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390947?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 17]
T2  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36382323; 13279-080045_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and the associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds for project development and operation. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to be provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, which rely heavily on federal and state government social service. five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces with a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland soils a t the site. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-yera floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below of site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site itself would result in increased pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress of available infrastructure; this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638).
JF  - EPA number: 080045, Draft EIS (Volume I)--877 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)-1,365 pages, Appendices (Volume III)-387 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)-863 pages and maps, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 17
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382323?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 17]
T2  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36382253; 13279-080045_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and the associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds for project development and operation. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to be provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, which rely heavily on federal and state government social service. five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces with a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland soils a t the site. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-yera floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below of site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site itself would result in increased pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress of available infrastructure; this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638).
JF  - EPA number: 080045, Draft EIS (Volume I)--877 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)-1,365 pages, Appendices (Volume III)-387 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)-863 pages and maps, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382253?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 17]
T2  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36382241; 13279-080045_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and the associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds for project development and operation. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to be provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, which rely heavily on federal and state government social service. five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces with a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland soils a t the site. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-yera floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below of site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site itself would result in increased pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress of available infrastructure; this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638).
JF  - EPA number: 080045, Draft EIS (Volume I)--877 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)-1,365 pages, Appendices (Volume III)-387 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)-863 pages and maps, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 9
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382241?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 2 of 6]
T2  - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON.
AN  - 36382171; 13278-080044_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon to the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon is proposed to allow the tribal trust to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious financial difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues and shrinking tribal budgets against a backdrop of a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks; the entire 60-acre site would lie within the port. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles via a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue casino operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino. The other two action alternatives under consideration are 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26 POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs by 2011 and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust-and-fee lands, which within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080044, Volume 1--680 pages, Volume 2--599 pages, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382171?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 6 of 6]
T2  - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON.
AN  - 36382130; 13278-080044_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon to the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon is proposed to allow the tribal trust to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious financial difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues and shrinking tribal budgets against a backdrop of a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks; the entire 60-acre site would lie within the port. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles via a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue casino operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino. The other two action alternatives under consideration are 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26 POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs by 2011 and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust-and-fee lands, which within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080044, Volume 1--680 pages, Volume 2--599 pages, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382130?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 4 of 6]
T2  - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON.
AN  - 36382055; 13278-080044_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon to the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon is proposed to allow the tribal trust to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious financial difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues and shrinking tribal budgets against a backdrop of a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks; the entire 60-acre site would lie within the port. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles via a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue casino operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino. The other two action alternatives under consideration are 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26 POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs by 2011 and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust-and-fee lands, which within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080044, Volume 1--680 pages, Volume 2--599 pages, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382055?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 17]
T2  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36381919; 13279-080045_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and the associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds for project development and operation. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to be provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, which rely heavily on federal and state government social service. five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces with a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland soils a t the site. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-yera floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below of site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site itself would result in increased pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress of available infrastructure; this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638).
JF  - EPA number: 080045, Draft EIS (Volume I)--877 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)-1,365 pages, Appendices (Volume III)-387 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)-863 pages and maps, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381919?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 17]
T2  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36381796; 13279-080045_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and the associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds for project development and operation. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to be provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, which rely heavily on federal and state government social service. five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces with a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland soils a t the site. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-yera floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below of site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site itself would result in increased pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress of available infrastructure; this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638).
JF  - EPA number: 080045, Draft EIS (Volume I)--877 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)-1,365 pages, Appendices (Volume III)-387 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)-863 pages and maps, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 13
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381796?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 17]
T2  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36381696; 13279-080045_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and the associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds for project development and operation. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to be provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, which rely heavily on federal and state government social service. five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces with a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland soils a t the site. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-yera floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below of site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site itself would result in increased pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress of available infrastructure; this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638).
JF  - EPA number: 080045, Draft EIS (Volume I)--877 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)-1,365 pages, Appendices (Volume III)-387 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)-863 pages and maps, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 11
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381696?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 17]
T2  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36381675; 13279-080045_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and the associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds for project development and operation. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to be provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, which rely heavily on federal and state government social service. five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces with a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland soils a t the site. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-yera floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below of site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site itself would result in increased pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress of available infrastructure; this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638).
JF  - EPA number: 080045, Draft EIS (Volume I)--877 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)-1,365 pages, Appendices (Volume III)-387 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)-863 pages and maps, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381675?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 17]
T2  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36381347; 13279-080045_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and the associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds for project development and operation. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to be provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, which rely heavily on federal and state government social service. five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces with a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland soils a t the site. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-yera floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below of site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site itself would result in increased pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress of available infrastructure; this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638).
JF  - EPA number: 080045, Draft EIS (Volume I)--877 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)-1,365 pages, Appendices (Volume III)-387 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)-863 pages and maps, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381347?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 1 of 6]
T2  - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON.
AN  - 36381274; 13278-080044_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon to the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon is proposed to allow the tribal trust to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious financial difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues and shrinking tribal budgets against a backdrop of a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks; the entire 60-acre site would lie within the port. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles via a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue casino operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino. The other two action alternatives under consideration are 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26 POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs by 2011 and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust-and-fee lands, which within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080044, Volume 1--680 pages, Volume 2--599 pages, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381274?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 17]
T2  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36381194; 13279-080045_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and the associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds for project development and operation. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to be provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, which rely heavily on federal and state government social service. five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces with a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland soils a t the site. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-yera floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below of site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site itself would result in increased pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress of available infrastructure; this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638).
JF  - EPA number: 080045, Draft EIS (Volume I)--877 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)-1,365 pages, Appendices (Volume III)-387 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)-863 pages and maps, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 15
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381194?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 17]
T2  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36381115; 13279-080045_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and the associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds for project development and operation. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to be provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, which rely heavily on federal and state government social service. five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces with a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland soils a t the site. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-yera floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below of site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site itself would result in increased pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress of available infrastructure; this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638).
JF  - EPA number: 080045, Draft EIS (Volume I)--877 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)-1,365 pages, Appendices (Volume III)-387 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)-863 pages and maps, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 12
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381115?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 5 of 6]
T2  - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON.
AN  - 36381067; 13278-080044_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon to the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon is proposed to allow the tribal trust to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious financial difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues and shrinking tribal budgets against a backdrop of a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks; the entire 60-acre site would lie within the port. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles via a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue casino operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino. The other two action alternatives under consideration are 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26 POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs by 2011 and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust-and-fee lands, which within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080044, Volume 1--680 pages, Volume 2--599 pages, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Easements
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381067?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080045/080045_0010.txt of 17]
T2  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36379922; 13279-080045_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and the associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds for project development and operation. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to be provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, which rely heavily on federal and state government social service. five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces with a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland soils a t the site. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-yera floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below of site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site itself would result in increased pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress of available infrastructure; this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638).
JF  - EPA number: 080045, Draft EIS (Volume I)--877 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)-1,365 pages, Appendices (Volume III)-387 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)-863 pages and maps, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080045/080045_0010.txt
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379922?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 17]
T2  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36379837; 13279-080045_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and the associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds for project development and operation. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to be provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, which rely heavily on federal and state government social service. five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces with a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland soils a t the site. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-yera floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below of site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site itself would result in increased pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress of available infrastructure; this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638).
JF  - EPA number: 080045, Draft EIS (Volume I)--877 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)-1,365 pages, Appendices (Volume III)-387 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)-863 pages and maps, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 8
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379837?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 17]
T2  - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MATERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36379676; 13279-080045_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and the associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds for project development and operation. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to be provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, which rely heavily on federal and state government social service. five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces with a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland soils a t the site. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-yera floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below of site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site itself would result in increased pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress of available infrastructure; this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638).
JF  - EPA number: 080045, Draft EIS (Volume I)--877 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)-1,365 pages, Appendices (Volume III)-387 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)-863 pages and maps, February 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Parking
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379676?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MATERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GENERAL PLAN/RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN: FOLSOM LAKE STATE RECREATION AREA AND FOLSOM POWERHOUSE STATE HISTORIC PARK, EL DORADO, PLACER, AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36413315; 13274
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan and resource management plan for Folsom Lake State Recreation Area (SRA) and Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park (SHP) in Sacramento, California is proposed. The 20,000-acre SRA lies at the confluence of the North and South Forks of the American River in the Sierra Nevada Foothills at the eastern edge of the Sacramento metropolitan area. The 35-acre SHP lies adjacent to the SRA along the southern shoreline of Lake Natoma, an afterbay of the Folsom dam which comprises 70 percent of the total SRA area. Both the SRA and the SHP are largely owned and solely managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation, though the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation owns one half of the SRA. Folsom and Natoma lakes offer the usual broad range of freshwater related recreational opportunities. The South Fork of the American River offers whitewater rafting opportunities. The ARA also offers a variety of land-based recreational activities, such as hiking, biking, picnicking, camping, and horseback riding. This EIS process addresses the California State Parks general management plan for the SRA and the SHA in combination with Reclamation's resource management plan for the two areas. Management goals are outlined for invasive species; oak woodland, savanna, and grassland; fire management in chaparral; special status species in chaparral, oak woodland, savanna, and grassland; vernal pools and associated special status species; riparian wetlands; aquatic weeds; exotic wildlife and nuisance native wildlife; steelhead and chinook salmon reproduction; recreational fishery enhancement; watershed protection; water quality database coordination across interested agencies; bacteriological monitoring and management; methylmercury monitoring; geologic resource protection; soils management; and cultural resource law and regulation enforcement. Visitor facilities would include a marina offering 685 wet slips and 175 dry storage slips, a second proposed marina adding 200 to 340 slips, boat launch facilities, boater access facilities for whitewater rafting on the South Fork of the American River, camping facilities, an extensive trail system, off-road vehicle use areas, and stipulations for special events and concessionary operations. Area-specific goals are outlined for Nimbus Flat/Shoals, Nimbus Dam, Lake Overlook, Mississippi Bar, Negro Bar, Natoma Canyon, Folsom Powerhouse SHP, Natoma Shore North, Natoma Shore South, Alder Creek and Pond, Lower Lake Natoma, Upper Lake Natoma, Folsom Dam, Beals Point, Mooney Ridge, Granite Bay South, Granite Bay North, Placer Shore, Rattlesnake Bar, North Fork Shore, Anderson Island, Peninsula, Darrington, Skunk Hollow/Salmon Falls, El Dorado Shore, Brown's Ravine, Mormon Island Cove, Mormon Island Preserve, Folsom Point, Folsom Lake, Middle North Fork, Middle South Fork, and Upper South Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The combined plans would provide an enormous variety or recreational and educational opportunities across the two management units, while protecting and preserving natural and cultural values with the broader area. Vegetation, fish and wildlife enhancement measures would enhance habitat diversity and eliminate, inasmuch as it is possible, invasive and nuisance species. Increased capacity for most recreational settings and functions would help reduce conflicts across different types of recreationists. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though recreation use management would coordinate recreational activities and, to the extent possible, prevent user conflicts, certain recreational uses would inevitably interfere in the recreational uses of some visitors, e.g., off-highway vehicle use would conflict with hikers and those seeking solitude. New construction and ground-disturbing management measures would disturb soils and destroy vegetation, eliminating the associated wildlife habitat and exacerbating sedimentation of receiving surface flows. Increasing the recreational capacity of the two units would increase trampling of vegetation and inadvertent and intentional damage to cultural resource sites. activities to a far more LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 080040, Volume 1--387 pages, Volume 2--384 pages, January 31, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-07
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Parks
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - Folsom Lake State Recreational Area
KW  - Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36413315?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+PLAN%2FRESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%3A+FOLSOM+LAKE+STATE+RECREATION+AREA+AND+FOLSOM+POWERHOUSE+STATE+HISTORIC+PARK%2C+EL+DORADO%2C+PLACER%2C+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GENERAL+PLAN%2FRESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%3A+FOLSOM+LAKE+STATE+RECREATION+AREA+AND+FOLSOM+POWERHOUSE+STATE+HISTORIC+PARK%2C+EL+DORADO%2C+PLACER%2C+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 31, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GENERAL PLAN/RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN: FOLSOM LAKE STATE RECREATION AREA AND FOLSOM POWERHOUSE STATE HISTORIC PARK, EL DORADO, PLACER, AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - GENERAL PLAN/RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN: FOLSOM LAKE STATE RECREATION AREA AND FOLSOM POWERHOUSE STATE HISTORIC PARK, EL DORADO, PLACER, AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36391363; 13274-080040_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan and resource management plan for Folsom Lake State Recreation Area (SRA) and Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park (SHP) in Sacramento, California is proposed. The 20,000-acre SRA lies at the confluence of the North and South Forks of the American River in the Sierra Nevada Foothills at the eastern edge of the Sacramento metropolitan area. The 35-acre SHP lies adjacent to the SRA along the southern shoreline of Lake Natoma, an afterbay of the Folsom dam which comprises 70 percent of the total SRA area. Both the SRA and the SHP are largely owned and solely managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation, though the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation owns one half of the SRA. Folsom and Natoma lakes offer the usual broad range of freshwater related recreational opportunities. The South Fork of the American River offers whitewater rafting opportunities. The ARA also offers a variety of land-based recreational activities, such as hiking, biking, picnicking, camping, and horseback riding. This EIS process addresses the California State Parks general management plan for the SRA and the SHA in combination with Reclamation's resource management plan for the two areas. Management goals are outlined for invasive species; oak woodland, savanna, and grassland; fire management in chaparral; special status species in chaparral, oak woodland, savanna, and grassland; vernal pools and associated special status species; riparian wetlands; aquatic weeds; exotic wildlife and nuisance native wildlife; steelhead and chinook salmon reproduction; recreational fishery enhancement; watershed protection; water quality database coordination across interested agencies; bacteriological monitoring and management; methylmercury monitoring; geologic resource protection; soils management; and cultural resource law and regulation enforcement. Visitor facilities would include a marina offering 685 wet slips and 175 dry storage slips, a second proposed marina adding 200 to 340 slips, boat launch facilities, boater access facilities for whitewater rafting on the South Fork of the American River, camping facilities, an extensive trail system, off-road vehicle use areas, and stipulations for special events and concessionary operations. Area-specific goals are outlined for Nimbus Flat/Shoals, Nimbus Dam, Lake Overlook, Mississippi Bar, Negro Bar, Natoma Canyon, Folsom Powerhouse SHP, Natoma Shore North, Natoma Shore South, Alder Creek and Pond, Lower Lake Natoma, Upper Lake Natoma, Folsom Dam, Beals Point, Mooney Ridge, Granite Bay South, Granite Bay North, Placer Shore, Rattlesnake Bar, North Fork Shore, Anderson Island, Peninsula, Darrington, Skunk Hollow/Salmon Falls, El Dorado Shore, Brown's Ravine, Mormon Island Cove, Mormon Island Preserve, Folsom Point, Folsom Lake, Middle North Fork, Middle South Fork, and Upper South Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The combined plans would provide an enormous variety or recreational and educational opportunities across the two management units, while protecting and preserving natural and cultural values with the broader area. Vegetation, fish and wildlife enhancement measures would enhance habitat diversity and eliminate, inasmuch as it is possible, invasive and nuisance species. Increased capacity for most recreational settings and functions would help reduce conflicts across different types of recreationists. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though recreation use management would coordinate recreational activities and, to the extent possible, prevent user conflicts, certain recreational uses would inevitably interfere in the recreational uses of some visitors, e.g., off-highway vehicle use would conflict with hikers and those seeking solitude. New construction and ground-disturbing management measures would disturb soils and destroy vegetation, eliminating the associated wildlife habitat and exacerbating sedimentation of receiving surface flows. Increasing the recreational capacity of the two units would increase trampling of vegetation and inadvertent and intentional damage to cultural resource sites. activities to a far more LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 080040, Volume 1--387 pages, Volume 2--384 pages, January 31, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-07
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Parks
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - Folsom Lake State Recreational Area
KW  - Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391363?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+PLAN%2FRESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%3A+FOLSOM+LAKE+STATE+RECREATION+AREA+AND+FOLSOM+POWERHOUSE+STATE+HISTORIC+PARK%2C+EL+DORADO%2C+PLACER%2C+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GENERAL+PLAN%2FRESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%3A+FOLSOM+LAKE+STATE+RECREATION+AREA+AND+FOLSOM+POWERHOUSE+STATE+HISTORIC+PARK%2C+EL+DORADO%2C+PLACER%2C+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 31, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GENERAL PLAN/RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN: FOLSOM LAKE STATE RECREATION AREA AND FOLSOM POWERHOUSE STATE HISTORIC PARK, EL DORADO, PLACER, AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - GENERAL PLAN/RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN: FOLSOM LAKE STATE RECREATION AREA AND FOLSOM POWERHOUSE STATE HISTORIC PARK, EL DORADO, PLACER, AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36381632; 13274-080040_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan and resource management plan for Folsom Lake State Recreation Area (SRA) and Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park (SHP) in Sacramento, California is proposed. The 20,000-acre SRA lies at the confluence of the North and South Forks of the American River in the Sierra Nevada Foothills at the eastern edge of the Sacramento metropolitan area. The 35-acre SHP lies adjacent to the SRA along the southern shoreline of Lake Natoma, an afterbay of the Folsom dam which comprises 70 percent of the total SRA area. Both the SRA and the SHP are largely owned and solely managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation, though the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation owns one half of the SRA. Folsom and Natoma lakes offer the usual broad range of freshwater related recreational opportunities. The South Fork of the American River offers whitewater rafting opportunities. The ARA also offers a variety of land-based recreational activities, such as hiking, biking, picnicking, camping, and horseback riding. This EIS process addresses the California State Parks general management plan for the SRA and the SHA in combination with Reclamation's resource management plan for the two areas. Management goals are outlined for invasive species; oak woodland, savanna, and grassland; fire management in chaparral; special status species in chaparral, oak woodland, savanna, and grassland; vernal pools and associated special status species; riparian wetlands; aquatic weeds; exotic wildlife and nuisance native wildlife; steelhead and chinook salmon reproduction; recreational fishery enhancement; watershed protection; water quality database coordination across interested agencies; bacteriological monitoring and management; methylmercury monitoring; geologic resource protection; soils management; and cultural resource law and regulation enforcement. Visitor facilities would include a marina offering 685 wet slips and 175 dry storage slips, a second proposed marina adding 200 to 340 slips, boat launch facilities, boater access facilities for whitewater rafting on the South Fork of the American River, camping facilities, an extensive trail system, off-road vehicle use areas, and stipulations for special events and concessionary operations. Area-specific goals are outlined for Nimbus Flat/Shoals, Nimbus Dam, Lake Overlook, Mississippi Bar, Negro Bar, Natoma Canyon, Folsom Powerhouse SHP, Natoma Shore North, Natoma Shore South, Alder Creek and Pond, Lower Lake Natoma, Upper Lake Natoma, Folsom Dam, Beals Point, Mooney Ridge, Granite Bay South, Granite Bay North, Placer Shore, Rattlesnake Bar, North Fork Shore, Anderson Island, Peninsula, Darrington, Skunk Hollow/Salmon Falls, El Dorado Shore, Brown's Ravine, Mormon Island Cove, Mormon Island Preserve, Folsom Point, Folsom Lake, Middle North Fork, Middle South Fork, and Upper South Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The combined plans would provide an enormous variety or recreational and educational opportunities across the two management units, while protecting and preserving natural and cultural values with the broader area. Vegetation, fish and wildlife enhancement measures would enhance habitat diversity and eliminate, inasmuch as it is possible, invasive and nuisance species. Increased capacity for most recreational settings and functions would help reduce conflicts across different types of recreationists. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though recreation use management would coordinate recreational activities and, to the extent possible, prevent user conflicts, certain recreational uses would inevitably interfere in the recreational uses of some visitors, e.g., off-highway vehicle use would conflict with hikers and those seeking solitude. New construction and ground-disturbing management measures would disturb soils and destroy vegetation, eliminating the associated wildlife habitat and exacerbating sedimentation of receiving surface flows. Increasing the recreational capacity of the two units would increase trampling of vegetation and inadvertent and intentional damage to cultural resource sites. activities to a far more LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 080040, Volume 1--387 pages, Volume 2--384 pages, January 31, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-07
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Parks
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - Folsom Lake State Recreational Area
KW  - Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381632?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+PLAN%2FRESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%3A+FOLSOM+LAKE+STATE+RECREATION+AREA+AND+FOLSOM+POWERHOUSE+STATE+HISTORIC+PARK%2C+EL+DORADO%2C+PLACER%2C+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GENERAL+PLAN%2FRESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%3A+FOLSOM+LAKE+STATE+RECREATION+AREA+AND+FOLSOM+POWERHOUSE+STATE+HISTORIC+PARK%2C+EL+DORADO%2C+PLACER%2C+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 31, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GENERAL PLAN/RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN: FOLSOM LAKE STATE RECREATION AREA AND FOLSOM POWERHOUSE STATE HISTORIC PARK, EL DORADO, PLACER, AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - GENERAL PLAN/RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN: FOLSOM LAKE STATE RECREATION AREA AND FOLSOM POWERHOUSE STATE HISTORIC PARK, EL DORADO, PLACER, AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36374697; 13274-080040_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan and resource management plan for Folsom Lake State Recreation Area (SRA) and Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park (SHP) in Sacramento, California is proposed. The 20,000-acre SRA lies at the confluence of the North and South Forks of the American River in the Sierra Nevada Foothills at the eastern edge of the Sacramento metropolitan area. The 35-acre SHP lies adjacent to the SRA along the southern shoreline of Lake Natoma, an afterbay of the Folsom dam which comprises 70 percent of the total SRA area. Both the SRA and the SHP are largely owned and solely managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation, though the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation owns one half of the SRA. Folsom and Natoma lakes offer the usual broad range of freshwater related recreational opportunities. The South Fork of the American River offers whitewater rafting opportunities. The ARA also offers a variety of land-based recreational activities, such as hiking, biking, picnicking, camping, and horseback riding. This EIS process addresses the California State Parks general management plan for the SRA and the SHA in combination with Reclamation's resource management plan for the two areas. Management goals are outlined for invasive species; oak woodland, savanna, and grassland; fire management in chaparral; special status species in chaparral, oak woodland, savanna, and grassland; vernal pools and associated special status species; riparian wetlands; aquatic weeds; exotic wildlife and nuisance native wildlife; steelhead and chinook salmon reproduction; recreational fishery enhancement; watershed protection; water quality database coordination across interested agencies; bacteriological monitoring and management; methylmercury monitoring; geologic resource protection; soils management; and cultural resource law and regulation enforcement. Visitor facilities would include a marina offering 685 wet slips and 175 dry storage slips, a second proposed marina adding 200 to 340 slips, boat launch facilities, boater access facilities for whitewater rafting on the South Fork of the American River, camping facilities, an extensive trail system, off-road vehicle use areas, and stipulations for special events and concessionary operations. Area-specific goals are outlined for Nimbus Flat/Shoals, Nimbus Dam, Lake Overlook, Mississippi Bar, Negro Bar, Natoma Canyon, Folsom Powerhouse SHP, Natoma Shore North, Natoma Shore South, Alder Creek and Pond, Lower Lake Natoma, Upper Lake Natoma, Folsom Dam, Beals Point, Mooney Ridge, Granite Bay South, Granite Bay North, Placer Shore, Rattlesnake Bar, North Fork Shore, Anderson Island, Peninsula, Darrington, Skunk Hollow/Salmon Falls, El Dorado Shore, Brown's Ravine, Mormon Island Cove, Mormon Island Preserve, Folsom Point, Folsom Lake, Middle North Fork, Middle South Fork, and Upper South Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The combined plans would provide an enormous variety or recreational and educational opportunities across the two management units, while protecting and preserving natural and cultural values with the broader area. Vegetation, fish and wildlife enhancement measures would enhance habitat diversity and eliminate, inasmuch as it is possible, invasive and nuisance species. Increased capacity for most recreational settings and functions would help reduce conflicts across different types of recreationists. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though recreation use management would coordinate recreational activities and, to the extent possible, prevent user conflicts, certain recreational uses would inevitably interfere in the recreational uses of some visitors, e.g., off-highway vehicle use would conflict with hikers and those seeking solitude. New construction and ground-disturbing management measures would disturb soils and destroy vegetation, eliminating the associated wildlife habitat and exacerbating sedimentation of receiving surface flows. Increasing the recreational capacity of the two units would increase trampling of vegetation and inadvertent and intentional damage to cultural resource sites. activities to a far more LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 080040, Volume 1--387 pages, Volume 2--384 pages, January 31, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-07
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Parks
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - Folsom Lake State Recreational Area
KW  - Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374697?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+PLAN%2FRESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%3A+FOLSOM+LAKE+STATE+RECREATION+AREA+AND+FOLSOM+POWERHOUSE+STATE+HISTORIC+PARK%2C+EL+DORADO%2C+PLACER%2C+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GENERAL+PLAN%2FRESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%3A+FOLSOM+LAKE+STATE+RECREATION+AREA+AND+FOLSOM+POWERHOUSE+STATE+HISTORIC+PARK%2C+EL+DORADO%2C+PLACER%2C+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 31, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KANE SPRINGS VALLEY GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36412618; 13147
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way through the Bureau of Land management's Ely District is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a groundwater development project in the Ely District and Lincoln County, Nevada. Project facilities would be located in southern Lincoln County within or immediately adjacent to the 2,640-foot-wide utility corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act. Under the proposed Kane Springs Valley Groundwater Development Project, which is the preferred alternative, the applicant (Lincoln County Water District) would construct infrastructure necessary to pump and convey groundwater in the Kane Springs Valley Hydrographic Basin o help future municipal water needs in the Coyote Spring Valley area. The project would include development of well fields to draw groundwater from the hydrographic basin, laying of water collection and transmission pipelines, installation of a terminal storage tank and a forebay storage tank, construction of electrical substations and distribution lines, and provision of ancillary telemetry system/fiber optic lines. Electrical transmission facilities, to be constructed and operated by Lincoln County Power District, would include a 2.5-mile 138-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, a 10.7-mile, 22.8-kV transmission line, the Emrys Jones Substation to be located on private land, and seven well field substations. The Lincoln County Telephone Company would be responsible for the telemetry and fiber optic equipment. Project implementation would occur over three phases, with one to three years between phases. The first construction phase would extend 90 to 180 days, while phases 2 and 3 would each require only 30 to 60 days to complete. Construction would begin at the southwestern end of the project area, near the intersection of US Highway 93 and Kane Springs Road, and continue to the northeast, generally following Kane Springs Road. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The availability of an a additional source of water supply in Lincoln County would support the growing water demand experienced by local communities in the county and the Coyote Springs Valley and meet expected future demand in the service area and, thereby, support continued economic development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Installation of transmission and fiber optic facilities would disturb approximately 191 acres of previously undisturbed desert land and the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat; 23 acres would be permanently displaced. Disturbed and displaced habitat would be suitable for use by the regionally occurring and federally protected desert tortoise. Grazing permit holders, recreationists, and other public users would experience a disruption in access to the area. The facilities considered by the applicant would lie within a seismically active area. Construction activities could affect the pristine character of the nearby Delamar Mountains and Meadow Valley Range Wilderness. The transmission line would be within the foreground of sensitive viewing areas visible from US 93. Construction activities would result in damage or displacement of 59 isolated archaeological resource sites, primarily sites containing chipped stone artifacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0295D, Volume 31, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080039, 467 pages, January 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-01
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Communication Systems
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Ely Resource Management Area
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36412618?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KANE+SPRINGS+VALLEY+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=KANE+SPRINGS+VALLEY+GROUNDWATER+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, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST ANTELOPE II COAL LEASE APPLICATION, CONVERSE AND CAMPBELL COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 36408490; 13146
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a competitive, sealed-bid lease sale for a tract of federal coal located adjacent to an existing surface coal mine in Converse and Campbell counties, Wyoming is proposed. The tract is located in the eastern Powder River Basin, a part of the Northern Great Plains that includes most of northeastern Wyoming. The West Antelope II Lease by Application (LBA) tract, for which the Antelope Coal Company (ACC) has submitted a lease application, encompasses 4,108.6 acres and contains an estimated 429.7 million tons of in-place federal coal estate. ACC, the operator of the adjacent Antelope Mine, proposes to mine the tract under a maintenance lease for the existing mine, of a lease sale is held and they acquire the lease. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, a competitive lease sale would be held, resulting in a maintenance surface mining lease being awarded to the successful bidder for the West Antelope LBA tract. ACC currently estimates that the average annual production from the mine extension would be between 36 million and 42 million tons per year, and the life of the existing mine would be extended by 10 to 12 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would produce a steady supply of coal for regional use, almost solely by electric generating plants, maintaining regional productivity and reducing the nations reliance on foreign sources of energy. As many as 40 additional workers would probably be added to ACC's current 430-employee workforce. Royalty bonus payments for coal in the LBA tract would be collected by the federal government and split with the state; it is expected that the federal and state government revenues would amount to between $581 million and $766 million and between $780 million and $977 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface mining would drastically alter tract topography and geology. Following reclamation, the average surface elevation would be lower due to removal of coal, though the reclaimed area would approximate premining contours. Still, flattening within the site could reduce habitat diversity. Mining would remove an average of 280 feet of overburden and 60 feet of coal over 4,109 acres. Predominant vegetation species to be removed during mining would include blue grama upland (42 percent) and blue grama roughland (29 percent); the associated wildlife habitat would, of course, be lose until the area is reclaimed. Habitat for the federally protected Ute ladies'-tresses and black-foot ferret could be damaged or destroyed. Recreational uses, including hunting, livestock grazing, oil and gas developments, which constitute the current land uses on the tract, would be eliminated during mining. Forty coal-bed natural gas wells have been completed within the tract, 30 off which are capable of producing; these wells would have to be vented if the Antelope II proposal went ahead, resulting in the irretrievable loss of this natural gas resource. Mining activities could affect an alluvial valley floor if present. Approximately 42.9 acres of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. would be affected. Mining would disturb the coal aquifer and aquifers in the overburden. The coal aquifer and any water-bearing strata in the overburden would be removed and replaced with unconsolidated backfill, resulting in a groundwater drawdown extending well beyond the tract. Antelope Creek, Horse Creek, and Spring Creek would be diverted around the tract. So far, 61 cultural resource sites have been discovered within the tract; seven archaeological sites considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be destroyed. The viewscape from Highway 59 would be severely degraded by mining. Residences and businesses are located in the vicinity of the mine; one residence could require relocation due to its probably extremely close proximity to the pit. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendment of 1976, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080038, 545 pages, January 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-04
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Coal
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Powder River Basin
KW  - Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendment of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36408490?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+ANTELOPE+II+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION%2C+CONVERSE+AND+CAMPBELL+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WEST+ANTELOPE+II+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION%2C+CONVERSE+AND+CAMPBELL+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, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST ANTELOPE II COAL LEASE APPLICATION, CONVERSE AND CAMPBELL COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - WEST ANTELOPE II COAL LEASE APPLICATION, CONVERSE AND CAMPBELL COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 36391921; 13146-080038_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a competitive, sealed-bid lease sale for a tract of federal coal located adjacent to an existing surface coal mine in Converse and Campbell counties, Wyoming is proposed. The tract is located in the eastern Powder River Basin, a part of the Northern Great Plains that includes most of northeastern Wyoming. The West Antelope II Lease by Application (LBA) tract, for which the Antelope Coal Company (ACC) has submitted a lease application, encompasses 4,108.6 acres and contains an estimated 429.7 million tons of in-place federal coal estate. ACC, the operator of the adjacent Antelope Mine, proposes to mine the tract under a maintenance lease for the existing mine, of a lease sale is held and they acquire the lease. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, a competitive lease sale would be held, resulting in a maintenance surface mining lease being awarded to the successful bidder for the West Antelope LBA tract. ACC currently estimates that the average annual production from the mine extension would be between 36 million and 42 million tons per year, and the life of the existing mine would be extended by 10 to 12 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would produce a steady supply of coal for regional use, almost solely by electric generating plants, maintaining regional productivity and reducing the nations reliance on foreign sources of energy. As many as 40 additional workers would probably be added to ACC's current 430-employee workforce. Royalty bonus payments for coal in the LBA tract would be collected by the federal government and split with the state; it is expected that the federal and state government revenues would amount to between $581 million and $766 million and between $780 million and $977 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface mining would drastically alter tract topography and geology. Following reclamation, the average surface elevation would be lower due to removal of coal, though the reclaimed area would approximate premining contours. Still, flattening within the site could reduce habitat diversity. Mining would remove an average of 280 feet of overburden and 60 feet of coal over 4,109 acres. Predominant vegetation species to be removed during mining would include blue grama upland (42 percent) and blue grama roughland (29 percent); the associated wildlife habitat would, of course, be lose until the area is reclaimed. Habitat for the federally protected Ute ladies'-tresses and black-foot ferret could be damaged or destroyed. Recreational uses, including hunting, livestock grazing, oil and gas developments, which constitute the current land uses on the tract, would be eliminated during mining. Forty coal-bed natural gas wells have been completed within the tract, 30 off which are capable of producing; these wells would have to be vented if the Antelope II proposal went ahead, resulting in the irretrievable loss of this natural gas resource. Mining activities could affect an alluvial valley floor if present. Approximately 42.9 acres of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. would be affected. Mining would disturb the coal aquifer and aquifers in the overburden. The coal aquifer and any water-bearing strata in the overburden would be removed and replaced with unconsolidated backfill, resulting in a groundwater drawdown extending well beyond the tract. Antelope Creek, Horse Creek, and Spring Creek would be diverted around the tract. So far, 61 cultural resource sites have been discovered within the tract; seven archaeological sites considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be destroyed. The viewscape from Highway 59 would be severely degraded by mining. Residences and businesses are located in the vicinity of the mine; one residence could require relocation due to its probably extremely close proximity to the pit. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendment of 1976, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080038, 545 pages, January 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-04
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Coal
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Powder River Basin
KW  - Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendment of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391921?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+ANTELOPE+II+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION%2C+CONVERSE+AND+CAMPBELL+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WEST+ANTELOPE+II+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION%2C+CONVERSE+AND+CAMPBELL+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, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST ANTELOPE II COAL LEASE APPLICATION, CONVERSE AND CAMPBELL COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - WEST ANTELOPE II COAL LEASE APPLICATION, CONVERSE AND CAMPBELL COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 36391537; 13146-080038_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a competitive, sealed-bid lease sale for a tract of federal coal located adjacent to an existing surface coal mine in Converse and Campbell counties, Wyoming is proposed. The tract is located in the eastern Powder River Basin, a part of the Northern Great Plains that includes most of northeastern Wyoming. The West Antelope II Lease by Application (LBA) tract, for which the Antelope Coal Company (ACC) has submitted a lease application, encompasses 4,108.6 acres and contains an estimated 429.7 million tons of in-place federal coal estate. ACC, the operator of the adjacent Antelope Mine, proposes to mine the tract under a maintenance lease for the existing mine, of a lease sale is held and they acquire the lease. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, a competitive lease sale would be held, resulting in a maintenance surface mining lease being awarded to the successful bidder for the West Antelope LBA tract. ACC currently estimates that the average annual production from the mine extension would be between 36 million and 42 million tons per year, and the life of the existing mine would be extended by 10 to 12 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would produce a steady supply of coal for regional use, almost solely by electric generating plants, maintaining regional productivity and reducing the nations reliance on foreign sources of energy. As many as 40 additional workers would probably be added to ACC's current 430-employee workforce. Royalty bonus payments for coal in the LBA tract would be collected by the federal government and split with the state; it is expected that the federal and state government revenues would amount to between $581 million and $766 million and between $780 million and $977 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface mining would drastically alter tract topography and geology. Following reclamation, the average surface elevation would be lower due to removal of coal, though the reclaimed area would approximate premining contours. Still, flattening within the site could reduce habitat diversity. Mining would remove an average of 280 feet of overburden and 60 feet of coal over 4,109 acres. Predominant vegetation species to be removed during mining would include blue grama upland (42 percent) and blue grama roughland (29 percent); the associated wildlife habitat would, of course, be lose until the area is reclaimed. Habitat for the federally protected Ute ladies'-tresses and black-foot ferret could be damaged or destroyed. Recreational uses, including hunting, livestock grazing, oil and gas developments, which constitute the current land uses on the tract, would be eliminated during mining. Forty coal-bed natural gas wells have been completed within the tract, 30 off which are capable of producing; these wells would have to be vented if the Antelope II proposal went ahead, resulting in the irretrievable loss of this natural gas resource. Mining activities could affect an alluvial valley floor if present. Approximately 42.9 acres of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. would be affected. Mining would disturb the coal aquifer and aquifers in the overburden. The coal aquifer and any water-bearing strata in the overburden would be removed and replaced with unconsolidated backfill, resulting in a groundwater drawdown extending well beyond the tract. Antelope Creek, Horse Creek, and Spring Creek would be diverted around the tract. So far, 61 cultural resource sites have been discovered within the tract; seven archaeological sites considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be destroyed. The viewscape from Highway 59 would be severely degraded by mining. Residences and businesses are located in the vicinity of the mine; one residence could require relocation due to its probably extremely close proximity to the pit. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendment of 1976, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080038, 545 pages, January 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-04
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Coal
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Powder River Basin
KW  - Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendment of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391537?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+ANTELOPE+II+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION%2C+CONVERSE+AND+CAMPBELL+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WEST+ANTELOPE+II+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION%2C+CONVERSE+AND+CAMPBELL+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, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KANE SPRINGS VALLEY GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - KANE SPRINGS VALLEY GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36381823; 13147-080039_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way through the Bureau of Land management's Ely District is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a groundwater development project in the Ely District and Lincoln County, Nevada. Project facilities would be located in southern Lincoln County within or immediately adjacent to the 2,640-foot-wide utility corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act. Under the proposed Kane Springs Valley Groundwater Development Project, which is the preferred alternative, the applicant (Lincoln County Water District) would construct infrastructure necessary to pump and convey groundwater in the Kane Springs Valley Hydrographic Basin o help future municipal water needs in the Coyote Spring Valley area. The project would include development of well fields to draw groundwater from the hydrographic basin, laying of water collection and transmission pipelines, installation of a terminal storage tank and a forebay storage tank, construction of electrical substations and distribution lines, and provision of ancillary telemetry system/fiber optic lines. Electrical transmission facilities, to be constructed and operated by Lincoln County Power District, would include a 2.5-mile 138-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, a 10.7-mile, 22.8-kV transmission line, the Emrys Jones Substation to be located on private land, and seven well field substations. The Lincoln County Telephone Company would be responsible for the telemetry and fiber optic equipment. Project implementation would occur over three phases, with one to three years between phases. The first construction phase would extend 90 to 180 days, while phases 2 and 3 would each require only 30 to 60 days to complete. Construction would begin at the southwestern end of the project area, near the intersection of US Highway 93 and Kane Springs Road, and continue to the northeast, generally following Kane Springs Road. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The availability of an a additional source of water supply in Lincoln County would support the growing water demand experienced by local communities in the county and the Coyote Springs Valley and meet expected future demand in the service area and, thereby, support continued economic development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Installation of transmission and fiber optic facilities would disturb approximately 191 acres of previously undisturbed desert land and the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat; 23 acres would be permanently displaced. Disturbed and displaced habitat would be suitable for use by the regionally occurring and federally protected desert tortoise. Grazing permit holders, recreationists, and other public users would experience a disruption in access to the area. The facilities considered by the applicant would lie within a seismically active area. Construction activities could affect the pristine character of the nearby Delamar Mountains and Meadow Valley Range Wilderness. The transmission line would be within the foreground of sensitive viewing areas visible from US 93. Construction activities would result in damage or displacement of 59 isolated archaeological resource sites, primarily sites containing chipped stone artifacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0295D, Volume 31, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080039, 467 pages, January 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-01
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Communication Systems
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Ely Resource Management Area
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381823?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KANE+SPRINGS+VALLEY+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=KANE+SPRINGS+VALLEY+GROUNDWATER+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, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST ANTELOPE II COAL LEASE APPLICATION, CONVERSE AND CAMPBELL COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - WEST ANTELOPE II COAL LEASE APPLICATION, CONVERSE AND CAMPBELL COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 36381766; 13146-080038_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a competitive, sealed-bid lease sale for a tract of federal coal located adjacent to an existing surface coal mine in Converse and Campbell counties, Wyoming is proposed. The tract is located in the eastern Powder River Basin, a part of the Northern Great Plains that includes most of northeastern Wyoming. The West Antelope II Lease by Application (LBA) tract, for which the Antelope Coal Company (ACC) has submitted a lease application, encompasses 4,108.6 acres and contains an estimated 429.7 million tons of in-place federal coal estate. ACC, the operator of the adjacent Antelope Mine, proposes to mine the tract under a maintenance lease for the existing mine, of a lease sale is held and they acquire the lease. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, a competitive lease sale would be held, resulting in a maintenance surface mining lease being awarded to the successful bidder for the West Antelope LBA tract. ACC currently estimates that the average annual production from the mine extension would be between 36 million and 42 million tons per year, and the life of the existing mine would be extended by 10 to 12 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would produce a steady supply of coal for regional use, almost solely by electric generating plants, maintaining regional productivity and reducing the nations reliance on foreign sources of energy. As many as 40 additional workers would probably be added to ACC's current 430-employee workforce. Royalty bonus payments for coal in the LBA tract would be collected by the federal government and split with the state; it is expected that the federal and state government revenues would amount to between $581 million and $766 million and between $780 million and $977 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface mining would drastically alter tract topography and geology. Following reclamation, the average surface elevation would be lower due to removal of coal, though the reclaimed area would approximate premining contours. Still, flattening within the site could reduce habitat diversity. Mining would remove an average of 280 feet of overburden and 60 feet of coal over 4,109 acres. Predominant vegetation species to be removed during mining would include blue grama upland (42 percent) and blue grama roughland (29 percent); the associated wildlife habitat would, of course, be lose until the area is reclaimed. Habitat for the federally protected Ute ladies'-tresses and black-foot ferret could be damaged or destroyed. Recreational uses, including hunting, livestock grazing, oil and gas developments, which constitute the current land uses on the tract, would be eliminated during mining. Forty coal-bed natural gas wells have been completed within the tract, 30 off which are capable of producing; these wells would have to be vented if the Antelope II proposal went ahead, resulting in the irretrievable loss of this natural gas resource. Mining activities could affect an alluvial valley floor if present. Approximately 42.9 acres of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. would be affected. Mining would disturb the coal aquifer and aquifers in the overburden. The coal aquifer and any water-bearing strata in the overburden would be removed and replaced with unconsolidated backfill, resulting in a groundwater drawdown extending well beyond the tract. Antelope Creek, Horse Creek, and Spring Creek would be diverted around the tract. So far, 61 cultural resource sites have been discovered within the tract; seven archaeological sites considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be destroyed. The viewscape from Highway 59 would be severely degraded by mining. Residences and businesses are located in the vicinity of the mine; one residence could require relocation due to its probably extremely close proximity to the pit. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendment of 1976, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080038, 545 pages, January 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-04
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Coal
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Powder River Basin
KW  - Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendment of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381766?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+ANTELOPE+II+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION%2C+CONVERSE+AND+CAMPBELL+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WEST+ANTELOPE+II+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION%2C+CONVERSE+AND+CAMPBELL+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, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KANE SPRINGS VALLEY GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - KANE SPRINGS VALLEY GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36379776; 13147-080039_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way through the Bureau of Land management's Ely District is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a groundwater development project in the Ely District and Lincoln County, Nevada. Project facilities would be located in southern Lincoln County within or immediately adjacent to the 2,640-foot-wide utility corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act. Under the proposed Kane Springs Valley Groundwater Development Project, which is the preferred alternative, the applicant (Lincoln County Water District) would construct infrastructure necessary to pump and convey groundwater in the Kane Springs Valley Hydrographic Basin o help future municipal water needs in the Coyote Spring Valley area. The project would include development of well fields to draw groundwater from the hydrographic basin, laying of water collection and transmission pipelines, installation of a terminal storage tank and a forebay storage tank, construction of electrical substations and distribution lines, and provision of ancillary telemetry system/fiber optic lines. Electrical transmission facilities, to be constructed and operated by Lincoln County Power District, would include a 2.5-mile 138-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, a 10.7-mile, 22.8-kV transmission line, the Emrys Jones Substation to be located on private land, and seven well field substations. The Lincoln County Telephone Company would be responsible for the telemetry and fiber optic equipment. Project implementation would occur over three phases, with one to three years between phases. The first construction phase would extend 90 to 180 days, while phases 2 and 3 would each require only 30 to 60 days to complete. Construction would begin at the southwestern end of the project area, near the intersection of US Highway 93 and Kane Springs Road, and continue to the northeast, generally following Kane Springs Road. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The availability of an a additional source of water supply in Lincoln County would support the growing water demand experienced by local communities in the county and the Coyote Springs Valley and meet expected future demand in the service area and, thereby, support continued economic development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Installation of transmission and fiber optic facilities would disturb approximately 191 acres of previously undisturbed desert land and the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat; 23 acres would be permanently displaced. Disturbed and displaced habitat would be suitable for use by the regionally occurring and federally protected desert tortoise. Grazing permit holders, recreationists, and other public users would experience a disruption in access to the area. The facilities considered by the applicant would lie within a seismically active area. Construction activities could affect the pristine character of the nearby Delamar Mountains and Meadow Valley Range Wilderness. The transmission line would be within the foreground of sensitive viewing areas visible from US 93. Construction activities would result in damage or displacement of 59 isolated archaeological resource sites, primarily sites containing chipped stone artifacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0295D, Volume 31, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080039, 467 pages, January 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-01
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Communication Systems
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Ely Resource Management Area
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379776?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KANE+SPRINGS+VALLEY+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=KANE+SPRINGS+VALLEY+GROUNDWATER+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, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTIAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36408624; 13143
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for prorateable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of prorateable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This draft EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. A preferred alternative has not been identified. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 080035, 476 pages and maps, January 29, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-03
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Columbia River
KW  - Naches River
KW  - Washington
KW  - Yakima River
KW  - Yakima Training Center (Army)
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 108-7, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36408624?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTIAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTIAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 29, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTIAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTIAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36391706; 13143-080035_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for prorateable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of prorateable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This draft EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. A preferred alternative has not been identified. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 080035, 476 pages and maps, January 29, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-03
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Columbia River
KW  - Naches River
KW  - Washington
KW  - Yakima River
KW  - Yakima Training Center (Army)
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 108-7, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391706?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTIAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTIAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 29, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTIAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTIAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36391062; 13143-080035_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for prorateable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of prorateable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This draft EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. A preferred alternative has not been identified. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 080035, 476 pages and maps, January 29, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-03
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Columbia River
KW  - Naches River
KW  - Washington
KW  - Yakima River
KW  - Yakima Training Center (Army)
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 108-7, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391062?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTIAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTIAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 29, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTIAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTIAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36382071; 13143-080035_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for prorateable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of prorateable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This draft EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. A preferred alternative has not been identified. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 080035, 476 pages and maps, January 29, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-03
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Conservation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Columbia River
KW  - Naches River
KW  - Washington
KW  - Yakima River
KW  - Yakima Training Center (Army)
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 108-7, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382071?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTIAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTIAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 29, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKHAVEN GEOTEHRMAL LEASING AREA, EL CENTRO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36412947; 13141
AB  - PURPOSE: The leasing under noncompetitive and/or competitive terms of geothermal resources within the 14,731-acre Truckhaven Geothermal Leasing Area in the El Centro Resource Management Area of Imperial County, California is proposed. The leasing area lies adjacent to the Salton Sea in western Imperial County, within the boundaries of the California Desert Conservation Area. A geothermal lease grants the lessee access to geothermal resources in the lease area for a period of 10 years. Once an area is developed for productive use of geothermal energy, the lease allows the lessee use of the resource for 40 years, with an option for renewal of an additional 40 years. Until the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, lands outside of known geothermal resource areas (KGRAs) could be leased noncompetitively; the lands within the Truckhaven Geothermal Leasing area are not within a KGRA at this time and were open to noncompetitive leasing until the passage of the Energy Policy Act. Five applications, filed in 2000 and 2001, are pending for noncompetitive leases of geothermal resources on 7,051 acres of federal lands within the action area. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to air quality, archaeological and other cultural resources, fish and wildlife habitat, human health and safety, with particular respect to hazardous materials usage, recreation resources, special status species, visual resources, topography, and geology and geological hazards. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would not approve the existing noncompetitive lease applications or offer any other lands for leasing, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would offer 11 sections of land with pending noncompetitive geothermal lease applications; no other lease tracts for which noncompetitive lease applications have been filed would be opened for geothermal leasing. Alternative 3, which is the currently proposed action and preferred alternative, would involve approval of leases for tracts with pending noncompetitive leasing applications filed between 2000 and 2001 and offer competitive leases for all other public lands within the Truckhaven area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would allow for the resolution of existing legitimate noncompetitive lease application filed several years in the past. Moreover, it would respond to an directive from the President of the United states and other legal mandates ordering the expedited leasing of known geothermal resources. The leases would also meet a state mandate to provide 20 percent of California's energy via renewable resources by 2010, up from 10.4 percent in 2004. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground shaking and volcanic activity in this geologically active region could damage facilities, and production activities could induce microseismic activity. Removal of large quantities of geothermal fluid could result in subsidence. Unique geologic formations in the vicinity could be physically impacted by lease development activities. Blasting could affect private wells. There would be a low probability that geothermal fluid could mix with shallow groundwater. Transmission line construction would displace wildlife habitat within rights-of-way. Wildlife potentially affected by the project would include terrestrial and avian species, including Large quantities of criteria air pollutants, particularly oxides of nitrogen, would be releases from drilling rig engines, and up to greenhouse gases would be released. Lease development activities could inadvertently impact recorded cultural resources and exposes unrecorded sites. Construction and operational noise could be heard by hikers and other recreationists. Lease development would engender a small potential of uncontrolled release of geothermal fluids into the environment, and some possibility exists for accidental release of hazardous materials. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0039D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080033, 261 pages, January 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FES 07-43
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Geothermal Resources
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Volcanoes
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - California Desert Conservation Area
KW  - El Centro Resource Management Area
KW  - Truckhaven Geothermal Leasing Area
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36412947?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKHAVEN+GEOTEHRMAL+LEASING+AREA%2C+EL+CENTRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TRUCKHAVEN+GEOTEHRMAL+LEASING+AREA%2C+EL+CENTRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKHAVEN GEOTEHRMAL LEASING AREA, EL CENTRO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - TRUCKHAVEN GEOTEHRMAL LEASING AREA, EL CENTRO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36382115; 13141-080033_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The leasing under noncompetitive and/or competitive terms of geothermal resources within the 14,731-acre Truckhaven Geothermal Leasing Area in the El Centro Resource Management Area of Imperial County, California is proposed. The leasing area lies adjacent to the Salton Sea in western Imperial County, within the boundaries of the California Desert Conservation Area. A geothermal lease grants the lessee access to geothermal resources in the lease area for a period of 10 years. Once an area is developed for productive use of geothermal energy, the lease allows the lessee use of the resource for 40 years, with an option for renewal of an additional 40 years. Until the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, lands outside of known geothermal resource areas (KGRAs) could be leased noncompetitively; the lands within the Truckhaven Geothermal Leasing area are not within a KGRA at this time and were open to noncompetitive leasing until the passage of the Energy Policy Act. Five applications, filed in 2000 and 2001, are pending for noncompetitive leases of geothermal resources on 7,051 acres of federal lands within the action area. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to air quality, archaeological and other cultural resources, fish and wildlife habitat, human health and safety, with particular respect to hazardous materials usage, recreation resources, special status species, visual resources, topography, and geology and geological hazards. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would not approve the existing noncompetitive lease applications or offer any other lands for leasing, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would offer 11 sections of land with pending noncompetitive geothermal lease applications; no other lease tracts for which noncompetitive lease applications have been filed would be opened for geothermal leasing. Alternative 3, which is the currently proposed action and preferred alternative, would involve approval of leases for tracts with pending noncompetitive leasing applications filed between 2000 and 2001 and offer competitive leases for all other public lands within the Truckhaven area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would allow for the resolution of existing legitimate noncompetitive lease application filed several years in the past. Moreover, it would respond to an directive from the President of the United states and other legal mandates ordering the expedited leasing of known geothermal resources. The leases would also meet a state mandate to provide 20 percent of California's energy via renewable resources by 2010, up from 10.4 percent in 2004. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground shaking and volcanic activity in this geologically active region could damage facilities, and production activities could induce microseismic activity. Removal of large quantities of geothermal fluid could result in subsidence. Unique geologic formations in the vicinity could be physically impacted by lease development activities. Blasting could affect private wells. There would be a low probability that geothermal fluid could mix with shallow groundwater. Transmission line construction would displace wildlife habitat within rights-of-way. Wildlife potentially affected by the project would include terrestrial and avian species, including Large quantities of criteria air pollutants, particularly oxides of nitrogen, would be releases from drilling rig engines, and up to greenhouse gases would be released. Lease development activities could inadvertently impact recorded cultural resources and exposes unrecorded sites. Construction and operational noise could be heard by hikers and other recreationists. Lease development would engender a small potential of uncontrolled release of geothermal fluids into the environment, and some possibility exists for accidental release of hazardous materials. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0039D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080033, 261 pages, January 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FES 07-43
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Geothermal Resources
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Volcanoes
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - California Desert Conservation Area
KW  - El Centro Resource Management Area
KW  - Truckhaven Geothermal Leasing Area
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382115?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKHAVEN+GEOTEHRMAL+LEASING+AREA%2C+EL+CENTRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TRUCKHAVEN+GEOTEHRMAL+LEASING+AREA%2C+EL+CENTRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36408460; 13131
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan (RMP) for the 375,000-acre Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument of Blaine, Chouteau, Fergus, and Phillips County, Montana is proposed. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to management human activities and uses; appropriate facilities and infrastructures in order to provide adequate visitor interpretation and administration; management of resource uses and protect the biological, historical, cultural, and visual values of the Monument; integration of Monument management with other agency and community plans; transportation and access management; and socioeconomic impacts. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives address the following four main areas: health of the land and fire regime; visitor use, services and infrastructure; natural gas exploration and development; and access and transportation. Alternative B would emphasize more intensive recreation and transportation management. Resource management activities would allow camping facilities and interpretive sites at varying levels to enable visitors to experience both the natural and historic benefits of this Monument, while ensuring that resource protection would not be compromised. Alternative C emphasizes providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. This alternative would differ from Alternative B in that it would more readily identify and accommodate changing conditions over time through the application of management decisions responsive to these changing conditions. Alternative D would also emphasize provision of visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument, but in a more self-directed fashion. This alternative would differ from Alternative C in that it would limit certain activities now rather than applying management decisions responsive to changing conditions. Alternative E would emphasize the natural condition and places the most limitations on visitors and other activities. Subtle forms of resource management and monitoring would minimize intervention into natural processes. Alternative F, the preferred alternative, would emphasize providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. Under this alternative, motorized use on the river would be allowed with seasonal limitations on upstream travel and a seasonal no-wake speed restriction in the wild and scenic segments of the UMNWSR. In addition, the wild and scenic segment from Holmes Council Island to the Fred Robinson Bridge would be restricted to non-motorized watercraft from June 5 to September 15. Standards and indicators would be used to manage boaters on the river and impacts to resources and no allocation system would be developed. About 378 miles of roads would be open to motorized travel either yearlong or seasonally and six backcountry airstrips would be designated open yearlong or seasonally. Management of oil and gas operations would be more restrictive under this alternative, allowing less surface disturbing activity than Alternatives A or B. Existing lease stipulations would be strengthened by implementing conditions of approval to protect the objects for which the Monument was designated. Under this alternative, it is foreseeable that 34 natural gas wells could be drilled on the existing leases in the Monument. POSITIVE IMPACTS: This alternative provides more opportunities for adaptive management to respond to increasing visitation and risks to resources that could occur over time. The Monument would be managed for a variety of sustainable visitor experiences in mostly primitive and natural landscapes. Management would be conducted in a manner that provided a healthy ecosystem supporting plant and animal species and achieves a sustainable variation of native vegetation communities. Land stewardship would occur in a manner that provides current and future generations with the social and economic benefits. The public and collaborating agencies (local, state, federal and tribal) would be included in management decisions at every opportunity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Areas that were not successfully reclaimed from Surface disturbing activities could be affected by excessive vegetation loss and soil erosion, which would be considered adverse where soil productivity and/or wildlife habitat were affected, particularly where sedimentation occurred to the extent that water quality was degraded. Unauthorized activities, such as offroad travel, could lead to soil compaction and the resultant increases in surface runoff and soil erosion. 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 06-0065D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080030, Volume I--573 pages and maps, Volume II--717 pages, Volume III--228 page and maps, January 24, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-02
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Exploration
KW  - Fires
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Montana
KW  - Upper Missouri Breaks River National Monuments
KW  - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7398, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36408460?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%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, Lewistown, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080030/080030_0010.txt of 10]
T2  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36392224; 13131-080030_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan (RMP) for the 375,000-acre Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument of Blaine, Chouteau, Fergus, and Phillips County, Montana is proposed. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to management human activities and uses; appropriate facilities and infrastructures in order to provide adequate visitor interpretation and administration; management of resource uses and protect the biological, historical, cultural, and visual values of the Monument; integration of Monument management with other agency and community plans; transportation and access management; and socioeconomic impacts. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives address the following four main areas: health of the land and fire regime; visitor use, services and infrastructure; natural gas exploration and development; and access and transportation. Alternative B would emphasize more intensive recreation and transportation management. Resource management activities would allow camping facilities and interpretive sites at varying levels to enable visitors to experience both the natural and historic benefits of this Monument, while ensuring that resource protection would not be compromised. Alternative C emphasizes providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. This alternative would differ from Alternative B in that it would more readily identify and accommodate changing conditions over time through the application of management decisions responsive to these changing conditions. Alternative D would also emphasize provision of visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument, but in a more self-directed fashion. This alternative would differ from Alternative C in that it would limit certain activities now rather than applying management decisions responsive to changing conditions. Alternative E would emphasize the natural condition and places the most limitations on visitors and other activities. Subtle forms of resource management and monitoring would minimize intervention into natural processes. Alternative F, the preferred alternative, would emphasize providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. Under this alternative, motorized use on the river would be allowed with seasonal limitations on upstream travel and a seasonal no-wake speed restriction in the wild and scenic segments of the UMNWSR. In addition, the wild and scenic segment from Holmes Council Island to the Fred Robinson Bridge would be restricted to non-motorized watercraft from June 5 to September 15. Standards and indicators would be used to manage boaters on the river and impacts to resources and no allocation system would be developed. About 378 miles of roads would be open to motorized travel either yearlong or seasonally and six backcountry airstrips would be designated open yearlong or seasonally. Management of oil and gas operations would be more restrictive under this alternative, allowing less surface disturbing activity than Alternatives A or B. Existing lease stipulations would be strengthened by implementing conditions of approval to protect the objects for which the Monument was designated. Under this alternative, it is foreseeable that 34 natural gas wells could be drilled on the existing leases in the Monument. POSITIVE IMPACTS: This alternative provides more opportunities for adaptive management to respond to increasing visitation and risks to resources that could occur over time. The Monument would be managed for a variety of sustainable visitor experiences in mostly primitive and natural landscapes. Management would be conducted in a manner that provided a healthy ecosystem supporting plant and animal species and achieves a sustainable variation of native vegetation communities. Land stewardship would occur in a manner that provides current and future generations with the social and economic benefits. The public and collaborating agencies (local, state, federal and tribal) would be included in management decisions at every opportunity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Areas that were not successfully reclaimed from Surface disturbing activities could be affected by excessive vegetation loss and soil erosion, which would be considered adverse where soil productivity and/or wildlife habitat were affected, particularly where sedimentation occurred to the extent that water quality was degraded. Unauthorized activities, such as offroad travel, could lead to soil compaction and the resultant increases in surface runoff and soil erosion. 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 06-0065D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080030, Volume I--573 pages and maps, Volume II--717 pages, Volume III--228 page and maps, January 24, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080030/080030_0010.txt
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-02
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Exploration
KW  - Fires
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Montana
KW  - Upper Missouri Breaks River National Monuments
KW  - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7398, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392224?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%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, Lewistown, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 7 of 10]
T2  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36391985; 13131-080030_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan (RMP) for the 375,000-acre Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument of Blaine, Chouteau, Fergus, and Phillips County, Montana is proposed. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to management human activities and uses; appropriate facilities and infrastructures in order to provide adequate visitor interpretation and administration; management of resource uses and protect the biological, historical, cultural, and visual values of the Monument; integration of Monument management with other agency and community plans; transportation and access management; and socioeconomic impacts. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives address the following four main areas: health of the land and fire regime; visitor use, services and infrastructure; natural gas exploration and development; and access and transportation. Alternative B would emphasize more intensive recreation and transportation management. Resource management activities would allow camping facilities and interpretive sites at varying levels to enable visitors to experience both the natural and historic benefits of this Monument, while ensuring that resource protection would not be compromised. Alternative C emphasizes providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. This alternative would differ from Alternative B in that it would more readily identify and accommodate changing conditions over time through the application of management decisions responsive to these changing conditions. Alternative D would also emphasize provision of visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument, but in a more self-directed fashion. This alternative would differ from Alternative C in that it would limit certain activities now rather than applying management decisions responsive to changing conditions. Alternative E would emphasize the natural condition and places the most limitations on visitors and other activities. Subtle forms of resource management and monitoring would minimize intervention into natural processes. Alternative F, the preferred alternative, would emphasize providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. Under this alternative, motorized use on the river would be allowed with seasonal limitations on upstream travel and a seasonal no-wake speed restriction in the wild and scenic segments of the UMNWSR. In addition, the wild and scenic segment from Holmes Council Island to the Fred Robinson Bridge would be restricted to non-motorized watercraft from June 5 to September 15. Standards and indicators would be used to manage boaters on the river and impacts to resources and no allocation system would be developed. About 378 miles of roads would be open to motorized travel either yearlong or seasonally and six backcountry airstrips would be designated open yearlong or seasonally. Management of oil and gas operations would be more restrictive under this alternative, allowing less surface disturbing activity than Alternatives A or B. Existing lease stipulations would be strengthened by implementing conditions of approval to protect the objects for which the Monument was designated. Under this alternative, it is foreseeable that 34 natural gas wells could be drilled on the existing leases in the Monument. POSITIVE IMPACTS: This alternative provides more opportunities for adaptive management to respond to increasing visitation and risks to resources that could occur over time. The Monument would be managed for a variety of sustainable visitor experiences in mostly primitive and natural landscapes. Management would be conducted in a manner that provided a healthy ecosystem supporting plant and animal species and achieves a sustainable variation of native vegetation communities. Land stewardship would occur in a manner that provides current and future generations with the social and economic benefits. The public and collaborating agencies (local, state, federal and tribal) would be included in management decisions at every opportunity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Areas that were not successfully reclaimed from Surface disturbing activities could be affected by excessive vegetation loss and soil erosion, which would be considered adverse where soil productivity and/or wildlife habitat were affected, particularly where sedimentation occurred to the extent that water quality was degraded. Unauthorized activities, such as offroad travel, could lead to soil compaction and the resultant increases in surface runoff and soil erosion. 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 06-0065D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080030, Volume I--573 pages and maps, Volume II--717 pages, Volume III--228 page and maps, January 24, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-02
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Exploration
KW  - Fires
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Montana
KW  - Upper Missouri Breaks River National Monuments
KW  - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7398, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391985?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%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, Lewistown, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 6 of 10]
T2  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36391870; 13131-080030_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan (RMP) for the 375,000-acre Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument of Blaine, Chouteau, Fergus, and Phillips County, Montana is proposed. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to management human activities and uses; appropriate facilities and infrastructures in order to provide adequate visitor interpretation and administration; management of resource uses and protect the biological, historical, cultural, and visual values of the Monument; integration of Monument management with other agency and community plans; transportation and access management; and socioeconomic impacts. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives address the following four main areas: health of the land and fire regime; visitor use, services and infrastructure; natural gas exploration and development; and access and transportation. Alternative B would emphasize more intensive recreation and transportation management. Resource management activities would allow camping facilities and interpretive sites at varying levels to enable visitors to experience both the natural and historic benefits of this Monument, while ensuring that resource protection would not be compromised. Alternative C emphasizes providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. This alternative would differ from Alternative B in that it would more readily identify and accommodate changing conditions over time through the application of management decisions responsive to these changing conditions. Alternative D would also emphasize provision of visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument, but in a more self-directed fashion. This alternative would differ from Alternative C in that it would limit certain activities now rather than applying management decisions responsive to changing conditions. Alternative E would emphasize the natural condition and places the most limitations on visitors and other activities. Subtle forms of resource management and monitoring would minimize intervention into natural processes. Alternative F, the preferred alternative, would emphasize providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. Under this alternative, motorized use on the river would be allowed with seasonal limitations on upstream travel and a seasonal no-wake speed restriction in the wild and scenic segments of the UMNWSR. In addition, the wild and scenic segment from Holmes Council Island to the Fred Robinson Bridge would be restricted to non-motorized watercraft from June 5 to September 15. Standards and indicators would be used to manage boaters on the river and impacts to resources and no allocation system would be developed. About 378 miles of roads would be open to motorized travel either yearlong or seasonally and six backcountry airstrips would be designated open yearlong or seasonally. Management of oil and gas operations would be more restrictive under this alternative, allowing less surface disturbing activity than Alternatives A or B. Existing lease stipulations would be strengthened by implementing conditions of approval to protect the objects for which the Monument was designated. Under this alternative, it is foreseeable that 34 natural gas wells could be drilled on the existing leases in the Monument. POSITIVE IMPACTS: This alternative provides more opportunities for adaptive management to respond to increasing visitation and risks to resources that could occur over time. The Monument would be managed for a variety of sustainable visitor experiences in mostly primitive and natural landscapes. Management would be conducted in a manner that provided a healthy ecosystem supporting plant and animal species and achieves a sustainable variation of native vegetation communities. Land stewardship would occur in a manner that provides current and future generations with the social and economic benefits. The public and collaborating agencies (local, state, federal and tribal) would be included in management decisions at every opportunity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Areas that were not successfully reclaimed from Surface disturbing activities could be affected by excessive vegetation loss and soil erosion, which would be considered adverse where soil productivity and/or wildlife habitat were affected, particularly where sedimentation occurred to the extent that water quality was degraded. Unauthorized activities, such as offroad travel, could lead to soil compaction and the resultant increases in surface runoff and soil erosion. 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 06-0065D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080030, Volume I--573 pages and maps, Volume II--717 pages, Volume III--228 page and maps, January 24, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-02
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Exploration
KW  - Fires
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Montana
KW  - Upper Missouri Breaks River National Monuments
KW  - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7398, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391870?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%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, Lewistown, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 3 of 10]
T2  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36391754; 13131-080030_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan (RMP) for the 375,000-acre Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument of Blaine, Chouteau, Fergus, and Phillips County, Montana is proposed. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to management human activities and uses; appropriate facilities and infrastructures in order to provide adequate visitor interpretation and administration; management of resource uses and protect the biological, historical, cultural, and visual values of the Monument; integration of Monument management with other agency and community plans; transportation and access management; and socioeconomic impacts. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives address the following four main areas: health of the land and fire regime; visitor use, services and infrastructure; natural gas exploration and development; and access and transportation. Alternative B would emphasize more intensive recreation and transportation management. Resource management activities would allow camping facilities and interpretive sites at varying levels to enable visitors to experience both the natural and historic benefits of this Monument, while ensuring that resource protection would not be compromised. Alternative C emphasizes providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. This alternative would differ from Alternative B in that it would more readily identify and accommodate changing conditions over time through the application of management decisions responsive to these changing conditions. Alternative D would also emphasize provision of visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument, but in a more self-directed fashion. This alternative would differ from Alternative C in that it would limit certain activities now rather than applying management decisions responsive to changing conditions. Alternative E would emphasize the natural condition and places the most limitations on visitors and other activities. Subtle forms of resource management and monitoring would minimize intervention into natural processes. Alternative F, the preferred alternative, would emphasize providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. Under this alternative, motorized use on the river would be allowed with seasonal limitations on upstream travel and a seasonal no-wake speed restriction in the wild and scenic segments of the UMNWSR. In addition, the wild and scenic segment from Holmes Council Island to the Fred Robinson Bridge would be restricted to non-motorized watercraft from June 5 to September 15. Standards and indicators would be used to manage boaters on the river and impacts to resources and no allocation system would be developed. About 378 miles of roads would be open to motorized travel either yearlong or seasonally and six backcountry airstrips would be designated open yearlong or seasonally. Management of oil and gas operations would be more restrictive under this alternative, allowing less surface disturbing activity than Alternatives A or B. Existing lease stipulations would be strengthened by implementing conditions of approval to protect the objects for which the Monument was designated. Under this alternative, it is foreseeable that 34 natural gas wells could be drilled on the existing leases in the Monument. POSITIVE IMPACTS: This alternative provides more opportunities for adaptive management to respond to increasing visitation and risks to resources that could occur over time. The Monument would be managed for a variety of sustainable visitor experiences in mostly primitive and natural landscapes. Management would be conducted in a manner that provided a healthy ecosystem supporting plant and animal species and achieves a sustainable variation of native vegetation communities. Land stewardship would occur in a manner that provides current and future generations with the social and economic benefits. The public and collaborating agencies (local, state, federal and tribal) would be included in management decisions at every opportunity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Areas that were not successfully reclaimed from Surface disturbing activities could be affected by excessive vegetation loss and soil erosion, which would be considered adverse where soil productivity and/or wildlife habitat were affected, particularly where sedimentation occurred to the extent that water quality was degraded. Unauthorized activities, such as offroad travel, could lead to soil compaction and the resultant increases in surface runoff and soil erosion. 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 06-0065D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080030, Volume I--573 pages and maps, Volume II--717 pages, Volume III--228 page and maps, January 24, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-02
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Exploration
KW  - Fires
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Montana
KW  - Upper Missouri Breaks River National Monuments
KW  - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7398, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391754?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%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, Lewistown, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 5 of 10]
T2  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36391278; 13131-080030_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan (RMP) for the 375,000-acre Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument of Blaine, Chouteau, Fergus, and Phillips County, Montana is proposed. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to management human activities and uses; appropriate facilities and infrastructures in order to provide adequate visitor interpretation and administration; management of resource uses and protect the biological, historical, cultural, and visual values of the Monument; integration of Monument management with other agency and community plans; transportation and access management; and socioeconomic impacts. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives address the following four main areas: health of the land and fire regime; visitor use, services and infrastructure; natural gas exploration and development; and access and transportation. Alternative B would emphasize more intensive recreation and transportation management. Resource management activities would allow camping facilities and interpretive sites at varying levels to enable visitors to experience both the natural and historic benefits of this Monument, while ensuring that resource protection would not be compromised. Alternative C emphasizes providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. This alternative would differ from Alternative B in that it would more readily identify and accommodate changing conditions over time through the application of management decisions responsive to these changing conditions. Alternative D would also emphasize provision of visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument, but in a more self-directed fashion. This alternative would differ from Alternative C in that it would limit certain activities now rather than applying management decisions responsive to changing conditions. Alternative E would emphasize the natural condition and places the most limitations on visitors and other activities. Subtle forms of resource management and monitoring would minimize intervention into natural processes. Alternative F, the preferred alternative, would emphasize providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. Under this alternative, motorized use on the river would be allowed with seasonal limitations on upstream travel and a seasonal no-wake speed restriction in the wild and scenic segments of the UMNWSR. In addition, the wild and scenic segment from Holmes Council Island to the Fred Robinson Bridge would be restricted to non-motorized watercraft from June 5 to September 15. Standards and indicators would be used to manage boaters on the river and impacts to resources and no allocation system would be developed. About 378 miles of roads would be open to motorized travel either yearlong or seasonally and six backcountry airstrips would be designated open yearlong or seasonally. Management of oil and gas operations would be more restrictive under this alternative, allowing less surface disturbing activity than Alternatives A or B. Existing lease stipulations would be strengthened by implementing conditions of approval to protect the objects for which the Monument was designated. Under this alternative, it is foreseeable that 34 natural gas wells could be drilled on the existing leases in the Monument. POSITIVE IMPACTS: This alternative provides more opportunities for adaptive management to respond to increasing visitation and risks to resources that could occur over time. The Monument would be managed for a variety of sustainable visitor experiences in mostly primitive and natural landscapes. Management would be conducted in a manner that provided a healthy ecosystem supporting plant and animal species and achieves a sustainable variation of native vegetation communities. Land stewardship would occur in a manner that provides current and future generations with the social and economic benefits. The public and collaborating agencies (local, state, federal and tribal) would be included in management decisions at every opportunity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Areas that were not successfully reclaimed from Surface disturbing activities could be affected by excessive vegetation loss and soil erosion, which would be considered adverse where soil productivity and/or wildlife habitat were affected, particularly where sedimentation occurred to the extent that water quality was degraded. Unauthorized activities, such as offroad travel, could lead to soil compaction and the resultant increases in surface runoff and soil erosion. 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 06-0065D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080030, Volume I--573 pages and maps, Volume II--717 pages, Volume III--228 page and maps, January 24, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-02
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Exploration
KW  - Fires
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Montana
KW  - Upper Missouri Breaks River National Monuments
KW  - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7398, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391278?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%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, Lewistown, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 1 of 10]
T2  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36390739; 13131-080030_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan (RMP) for the 375,000-acre Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument of Blaine, Chouteau, Fergus, and Phillips County, Montana is proposed. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to management human activities and uses; appropriate facilities and infrastructures in order to provide adequate visitor interpretation and administration; management of resource uses and protect the biological, historical, cultural, and visual values of the Monument; integration of Monument management with other agency and community plans; transportation and access management; and socioeconomic impacts. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives address the following four main areas: health of the land and fire regime; visitor use, services and infrastructure; natural gas exploration and development; and access and transportation. Alternative B would emphasize more intensive recreation and transportation management. Resource management activities would allow camping facilities and interpretive sites at varying levels to enable visitors to experience both the natural and historic benefits of this Monument, while ensuring that resource protection would not be compromised. Alternative C emphasizes providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. This alternative would differ from Alternative B in that it would more readily identify and accommodate changing conditions over time through the application of management decisions responsive to these changing conditions. Alternative D would also emphasize provision of visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument, but in a more self-directed fashion. This alternative would differ from Alternative C in that it would limit certain activities now rather than applying management decisions responsive to changing conditions. Alternative E would emphasize the natural condition and places the most limitations on visitors and other activities. Subtle forms of resource management and monitoring would minimize intervention into natural processes. Alternative F, the preferred alternative, would emphasize providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. Under this alternative, motorized use on the river would be allowed with seasonal limitations on upstream travel and a seasonal no-wake speed restriction in the wild and scenic segments of the UMNWSR. In addition, the wild and scenic segment from Holmes Council Island to the Fred Robinson Bridge would be restricted to non-motorized watercraft from June 5 to September 15. Standards and indicators would be used to manage boaters on the river and impacts to resources and no allocation system would be developed. About 378 miles of roads would be open to motorized travel either yearlong or seasonally and six backcountry airstrips would be designated open yearlong or seasonally. Management of oil and gas operations would be more restrictive under this alternative, allowing less surface disturbing activity than Alternatives A or B. Existing lease stipulations would be strengthened by implementing conditions of approval to protect the objects for which the Monument was designated. Under this alternative, it is foreseeable that 34 natural gas wells could be drilled on the existing leases in the Monument. POSITIVE IMPACTS: This alternative provides more opportunities for adaptive management to respond to increasing visitation and risks to resources that could occur over time. The Monument would be managed for a variety of sustainable visitor experiences in mostly primitive and natural landscapes. Management would be conducted in a manner that provided a healthy ecosystem supporting plant and animal species and achieves a sustainable variation of native vegetation communities. Land stewardship would occur in a manner that provides current and future generations with the social and economic benefits. The public and collaborating agencies (local, state, federal and tribal) would be included in management decisions at every opportunity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Areas that were not successfully reclaimed from Surface disturbing activities could be affected by excessive vegetation loss and soil erosion, which would be considered adverse where soil productivity and/or wildlife habitat were affected, particularly where sedimentation occurred to the extent that water quality was degraded. Unauthorized activities, such as offroad travel, could lead to soil compaction and the resultant increases in surface runoff and soil erosion. 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 06-0065D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080030, Volume I--573 pages and maps, Volume II--717 pages, Volume III--228 page and maps, January 24, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-02
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Exploration
KW  - Fires
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Montana
KW  - Upper Missouri Breaks River National Monuments
KW  - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7398, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390739?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%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, Lewistown, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 4 of 10]
T2  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36382902; 13131-080030_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan (RMP) for the 375,000-acre Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument of Blaine, Chouteau, Fergus, and Phillips County, Montana is proposed. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to management human activities and uses; appropriate facilities and infrastructures in order to provide adequate visitor interpretation and administration; management of resource uses and protect the biological, historical, cultural, and visual values of the Monument; integration of Monument management with other agency and community plans; transportation and access management; and socioeconomic impacts. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives address the following four main areas: health of the land and fire regime; visitor use, services and infrastructure; natural gas exploration and development; and access and transportation. Alternative B would emphasize more intensive recreation and transportation management. Resource management activities would allow camping facilities and interpretive sites at varying levels to enable visitors to experience both the natural and historic benefits of this Monument, while ensuring that resource protection would not be compromised. Alternative C emphasizes providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. This alternative would differ from Alternative B in that it would more readily identify and accommodate changing conditions over time through the application of management decisions responsive to these changing conditions. Alternative D would also emphasize provision of visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument, but in a more self-directed fashion. This alternative would differ from Alternative C in that it would limit certain activities now rather than applying management decisions responsive to changing conditions. Alternative E would emphasize the natural condition and places the most limitations on visitors and other activities. Subtle forms of resource management and monitoring would minimize intervention into natural processes. Alternative F, the preferred alternative, would emphasize providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. Under this alternative, motorized use on the river would be allowed with seasonal limitations on upstream travel and a seasonal no-wake speed restriction in the wild and scenic segments of the UMNWSR. In addition, the wild and scenic segment from Holmes Council Island to the Fred Robinson Bridge would be restricted to non-motorized watercraft from June 5 to September 15. Standards and indicators would be used to manage boaters on the river and impacts to resources and no allocation system would be developed. About 378 miles of roads would be open to motorized travel either yearlong or seasonally and six backcountry airstrips would be designated open yearlong or seasonally. Management of oil and gas operations would be more restrictive under this alternative, allowing less surface disturbing activity than Alternatives A or B. Existing lease stipulations would be strengthened by implementing conditions of approval to protect the objects for which the Monument was designated. Under this alternative, it is foreseeable that 34 natural gas wells could be drilled on the existing leases in the Monument. POSITIVE IMPACTS: This alternative provides more opportunities for adaptive management to respond to increasing visitation and risks to resources that could occur over time. The Monument would be managed for a variety of sustainable visitor experiences in mostly primitive and natural landscapes. Management would be conducted in a manner that provided a healthy ecosystem supporting plant and animal species and achieves a sustainable variation of native vegetation communities. Land stewardship would occur in a manner that provides current and future generations with the social and economic benefits. The public and collaborating agencies (local, state, federal and tribal) would be included in management decisions at every opportunity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Areas that were not successfully reclaimed from Surface disturbing activities could be affected by excessive vegetation loss and soil erosion, which would be considered adverse where soil productivity and/or wildlife habitat were affected, particularly where sedimentation occurred to the extent that water quality was degraded. Unauthorized activities, such as offroad travel, could lead to soil compaction and the resultant increases in surface runoff and soil erosion. 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 06-0065D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080030, Volume I--573 pages and maps, Volume II--717 pages, Volume III--228 page and maps, January 24, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-02
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Exploration
KW  - Fires
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Montana
KW  - Upper Missouri Breaks River National Monuments
KW  - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7398, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382902?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%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, Lewistown, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 8 of 10]
T2  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36382183; 13131-080030_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan (RMP) for the 375,000-acre Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument of Blaine, Chouteau, Fergus, and Phillips County, Montana is proposed. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to management human activities and uses; appropriate facilities and infrastructures in order to provide adequate visitor interpretation and administration; management of resource uses and protect the biological, historical, cultural, and visual values of the Monument; integration of Monument management with other agency and community plans; transportation and access management; and socioeconomic impacts. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives address the following four main areas: health of the land and fire regime; visitor use, services and infrastructure; natural gas exploration and development; and access and transportation. Alternative B would emphasize more intensive recreation and transportation management. Resource management activities would allow camping facilities and interpretive sites at varying levels to enable visitors to experience both the natural and historic benefits of this Monument, while ensuring that resource protection would not be compromised. Alternative C emphasizes providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. This alternative would differ from Alternative B in that it would more readily identify and accommodate changing conditions over time through the application of management decisions responsive to these changing conditions. Alternative D would also emphasize provision of visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument, but in a more self-directed fashion. This alternative would differ from Alternative C in that it would limit certain activities now rather than applying management decisions responsive to changing conditions. Alternative E would emphasize the natural condition and places the most limitations on visitors and other activities. Subtle forms of resource management and monitoring would minimize intervention into natural processes. Alternative F, the preferred alternative, would emphasize providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. Under this alternative, motorized use on the river would be allowed with seasonal limitations on upstream travel and a seasonal no-wake speed restriction in the wild and scenic segments of the UMNWSR. In addition, the wild and scenic segment from Holmes Council Island to the Fred Robinson Bridge would be restricted to non-motorized watercraft from June 5 to September 15. Standards and indicators would be used to manage boaters on the river and impacts to resources and no allocation system would be developed. About 378 miles of roads would be open to motorized travel either yearlong or seasonally and six backcountry airstrips would be designated open yearlong or seasonally. Management of oil and gas operations would be more restrictive under this alternative, allowing less surface disturbing activity than Alternatives A or B. Existing lease stipulations would be strengthened by implementing conditions of approval to protect the objects for which the Monument was designated. Under this alternative, it is foreseeable that 34 natural gas wells could be drilled on the existing leases in the Monument. POSITIVE IMPACTS: This alternative provides more opportunities for adaptive management to respond to increasing visitation and risks to resources that could occur over time. The Monument would be managed for a variety of sustainable visitor experiences in mostly primitive and natural landscapes. Management would be conducted in a manner that provided a healthy ecosystem supporting plant and animal species and achieves a sustainable variation of native vegetation communities. Land stewardship would occur in a manner that provides current and future generations with the social and economic benefits. The public and collaborating agencies (local, state, federal and tribal) would be included in management decisions at every opportunity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Areas that were not successfully reclaimed from Surface disturbing activities could be affected by excessive vegetation loss and soil erosion, which would be considered adverse where soil productivity and/or wildlife habitat were affected, particularly where sedimentation occurred to the extent that water quality was degraded. Unauthorized activities, such as offroad travel, could lead to soil compaction and the resultant increases in surface runoff and soil erosion. 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 06-0065D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080030, Volume I--573 pages and maps, Volume II--717 pages, Volume III--228 page and maps, January 24, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 8
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-02
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Exploration
KW  - Fires
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Montana
KW  - Upper Missouri Breaks River National Monuments
KW  - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7398, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382183?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%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, Lewistown, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 9 of 10]
T2  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36381765; 13131-080030_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan (RMP) for the 375,000-acre Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument of Blaine, Chouteau, Fergus, and Phillips County, Montana is proposed. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to management human activities and uses; appropriate facilities and infrastructures in order to provide adequate visitor interpretation and administration; management of resource uses and protect the biological, historical, cultural, and visual values of the Monument; integration of Monument management with other agency and community plans; transportation and access management; and socioeconomic impacts. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives address the following four main areas: health of the land and fire regime; visitor use, services and infrastructure; natural gas exploration and development; and access and transportation. Alternative B would emphasize more intensive recreation and transportation management. Resource management activities would allow camping facilities and interpretive sites at varying levels to enable visitors to experience both the natural and historic benefits of this Monument, while ensuring that resource protection would not be compromised. Alternative C emphasizes providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. This alternative would differ from Alternative B in that it would more readily identify and accommodate changing conditions over time through the application of management decisions responsive to these changing conditions. Alternative D would also emphasize provision of visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument, but in a more self-directed fashion. This alternative would differ from Alternative C in that it would limit certain activities now rather than applying management decisions responsive to changing conditions. Alternative E would emphasize the natural condition and places the most limitations on visitors and other activities. Subtle forms of resource management and monitoring would minimize intervention into natural processes. Alternative F, the preferred alternative, would emphasize providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. Under this alternative, motorized use on the river would be allowed with seasonal limitations on upstream travel and a seasonal no-wake speed restriction in the wild and scenic segments of the UMNWSR. In addition, the wild and scenic segment from Holmes Council Island to the Fred Robinson Bridge would be restricted to non-motorized watercraft from June 5 to September 15. Standards and indicators would be used to manage boaters on the river and impacts to resources and no allocation system would be developed. About 378 miles of roads would be open to motorized travel either yearlong or seasonally and six backcountry airstrips would be designated open yearlong or seasonally. Management of oil and gas operations would be more restrictive under this alternative, allowing less surface disturbing activity than Alternatives A or B. Existing lease stipulations would be strengthened by implementing conditions of approval to protect the objects for which the Monument was designated. Under this alternative, it is foreseeable that 34 natural gas wells could be drilled on the existing leases in the Monument. POSITIVE IMPACTS: This alternative provides more opportunities for adaptive management to respond to increasing visitation and risks to resources that could occur over time. The Monument would be managed for a variety of sustainable visitor experiences in mostly primitive and natural landscapes. Management would be conducted in a manner that provided a healthy ecosystem supporting plant and animal species and achieves a sustainable variation of native vegetation communities. Land stewardship would occur in a manner that provides current and future generations with the social and economic benefits. The public and collaborating agencies (local, state, federal and tribal) would be included in management decisions at every opportunity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Areas that were not successfully reclaimed from Surface disturbing activities could be affected by excessive vegetation loss and soil erosion, which would be considered adverse where soil productivity and/or wildlife habitat were affected, particularly where sedimentation occurred to the extent that water quality was degraded. Unauthorized activities, such as offroad travel, could lead to soil compaction and the resultant increases in surface runoff and soil erosion. 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 06-0065D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080030, Volume I--573 pages and maps, Volume II--717 pages, Volume III--228 page and maps, January 24, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 9
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-02
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Exploration
KW  - Fires
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Montana
KW  - Upper Missouri Breaks River National Monuments
KW  - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7398, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381765?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%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, Lewistown, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 2 of 10]
T2  - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36381687; 13131-080030_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan (RMP) for the 375,000-acre Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument of Blaine, Chouteau, Fergus, and Phillips County, Montana is proposed. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to management human activities and uses; appropriate facilities and infrastructures in order to provide adequate visitor interpretation and administration; management of resource uses and protect the biological, historical, cultural, and visual values of the Monument; integration of Monument management with other agency and community plans; transportation and access management; and socioeconomic impacts. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives address the following four main areas: health of the land and fire regime; visitor use, services and infrastructure; natural gas exploration and development; and access and transportation. Alternative B would emphasize more intensive recreation and transportation management. Resource management activities would allow camping facilities and interpretive sites at varying levels to enable visitors to experience both the natural and historic benefits of this Monument, while ensuring that resource protection would not be compromised. Alternative C emphasizes providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. This alternative would differ from Alternative B in that it would more readily identify and accommodate changing conditions over time through the application of management decisions responsive to these changing conditions. Alternative D would also emphasize provision of visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument, but in a more self-directed fashion. This alternative would differ from Alternative C in that it would limit certain activities now rather than applying management decisions responsive to changing conditions. Alternative E would emphasize the natural condition and places the most limitations on visitors and other activities. Subtle forms of resource management and monitoring would minimize intervention into natural processes. Alternative F, the preferred alternative, would emphasize providing visitors with opportunities to experience the Monument. Under this alternative, motorized use on the river would be allowed with seasonal limitations on upstream travel and a seasonal no-wake speed restriction in the wild and scenic segments of the UMNWSR. In addition, the wild and scenic segment from Holmes Council Island to the Fred Robinson Bridge would be restricted to non-motorized watercraft from June 5 to September 15. Standards and indicators would be used to manage boaters on the river and impacts to resources and no allocation system would be developed. About 378 miles of roads would be open to motorized travel either yearlong or seasonally and six backcountry airstrips would be designated open yearlong or seasonally. Management of oil and gas operations would be more restrictive under this alternative, allowing less surface disturbing activity than Alternatives A or B. Existing lease stipulations would be strengthened by implementing conditions of approval to protect the objects for which the Monument was designated. Under this alternative, it is foreseeable that 34 natural gas wells could be drilled on the existing leases in the Monument. POSITIVE IMPACTS: This alternative provides more opportunities for adaptive management to respond to increasing visitation and risks to resources that could occur over time. The Monument would be managed for a variety of sustainable visitor experiences in mostly primitive and natural landscapes. Management would be conducted in a manner that provided a healthy ecosystem supporting plant and animal species and achieves a sustainable variation of native vegetation communities. Land stewardship would occur in a manner that provides current and future generations with the social and economic benefits. The public and collaborating agencies (local, state, federal and tribal) would be included in management decisions at every opportunity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Areas that were not successfully reclaimed from Surface disturbing activities could be affected by excessive vegetation loss and soil erosion, which would be considered adverse where soil productivity and/or wildlife habitat were affected, particularly where sedimentation occurred to the extent that water quality was degraded. Unauthorized activities, such as offroad travel, could lead to soil compaction and the resultant increases in surface runoff and soil erosion. 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 06-0065D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080030, Volume I--573 pages and maps, Volume II--717 pages, Volume III--228 page and maps, January 24, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-02
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Exploration
KW  - Fires
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Montana
KW  - Upper Missouri Breaks River National Monuments
KW  - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7398, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381687?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%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, Lewistown, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36412900; 13130
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1998. An August 2004 attachment to the revision of the February 1998 draft EIS provided a CD-ROM containing the text of the revised draft. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance streamflows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 05-0258D, Volume 29, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080029, Final EIS--878 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 1)--570 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 2)--321 pages, Water Resources Appendix--966 pages, Biological Resources Appendix--141 pages, Sedimentation and Erosion Appendix--103 pages, Negotiated Agreement Appendix--311 pages, Cultural Resources Appendix--103 pages, Water Quality Appendix--65 pages, Cumulative Effects Appendix--51 pages, Notice of Petitions and Water Appropriation Applications Appendix--19 pages, Comments and Responses Appendix--455 pages, CD-ROM, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-08
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36412900?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36412628; 13129
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations, as well as provision of the associated infrastructure, within a 137,93-acre area, most of which lies in Carbon County; the area lies 30 miles east--northeast of Price. The area is bounded on the west by Sheep Canyon, on the north by Nine Mile Canyon, on the east by Green River, and on the south by a straight line reflecting an anticline in the sub-surface that limits the southern extent of the natural gas resources targeted by the proposal. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce impacts of development within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate in partnership to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: National mineral leasing policies, and the regulations by which they are enforced, recognize the statutory right of leaseholders to develop mineral resources to meet the continuing increase in the demand for natural gas NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance and erosion, affecting vegetation and soil over thousands of acres of disturbed areas, would increase sedimentation and turbidity in surface water flows. Hundreds of tons of soil losses per year would be expected. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Developments would affect the potential of wilderness study areas to maintain extensive enough wilderness values to be eligible for inclusion in the National Wilderness System. Paleontological sites could be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377).
JF  - EPA number: 080028, Draft EIS (Volume I)--211 pages Draft EIS (Volume II)--224 pages, Appendices A through F (Volume III)--99 pages and maps, Appendices G through O (Volume IV)--472 pages, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Price Resource management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36412628?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 8 of 13]
T2  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36391623; 13129-080028_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations, as well as provision of the associated infrastructure, within a 137,93-acre area, most of which lies in Carbon County; the area lies 30 miles east--northeast of Price. The area is bounded on the west by Sheep Canyon, on the north by Nine Mile Canyon, on the east by Green River, and on the south by a straight line reflecting an anticline in the sub-surface that limits the southern extent of the natural gas resources targeted by the proposal. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce impacts of development within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate in partnership to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: National mineral leasing policies, and the regulations by which they are enforced, recognize the statutory right of leaseholders to develop mineral resources to meet the continuing increase in the demand for natural gas NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance and erosion, affecting vegetation and soil over thousands of acres of disturbed areas, would increase sedimentation and turbidity in surface water flows. Hundreds of tons of soil losses per year would be expected. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Developments would affect the potential of wilderness study areas to maintain extensive enough wilderness values to be eligible for inclusion in the National Wilderness System. Paleontological sites could be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377).
JF  - EPA number: 080028, Draft EIS (Volume I)--211 pages Draft EIS (Volume II)--224 pages, Appendices A through F (Volume III)--99 pages and maps, Appendices G through O (Volume IV)--472 pages, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 8
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Price Resource management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391623?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 19]
T2  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36391053; 13130-080029_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1998. An August 2004 attachment to the revision of the February 1998 draft EIS provided a CD-ROM containing the text of the revised draft. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance streamflows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 05-0258D, Volume 29, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080029, Final EIS--878 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 1)--570 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 2)--321 pages, Water Resources Appendix--966 pages, Biological Resources Appendix--141 pages, Sedimentation and Erosion Appendix--103 pages, Negotiated Agreement Appendix--311 pages, Cultural Resources Appendix--103 pages, Water Quality Appendix--65 pages, Cumulative Effects Appendix--51 pages, Notice of Petitions and Water Appropriation Applications Appendix--19 pages, Comments and Responses Appendix--455 pages, CD-ROM, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-08
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391053?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 7 of 13]
T2  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36390868; 13129-080028_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations, as well as provision of the associated infrastructure, within a 137,93-acre area, most of which lies in Carbon County; the area lies 30 miles east--northeast of Price. The area is bounded on the west by Sheep Canyon, on the north by Nine Mile Canyon, on the east by Green River, and on the south by a straight line reflecting an anticline in the sub-surface that limits the southern extent of the natural gas resources targeted by the proposal. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce impacts of development within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate in partnership to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: National mineral leasing policies, and the regulations by which they are enforced, recognize the statutory right of leaseholders to develop mineral resources to meet the continuing increase in the demand for natural gas NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance and erosion, affecting vegetation and soil over thousands of acres of disturbed areas, would increase sedimentation and turbidity in surface water flows. Hundreds of tons of soil losses per year would be expected. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Developments would affect the potential of wilderness study areas to maintain extensive enough wilderness values to be eligible for inclusion in the National Wilderness System. Paleontological sites could be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377).
JF  - EPA number: 080028, Draft EIS (Volume I)--211 pages Draft EIS (Volume II)--224 pages, Appendices A through F (Volume III)--99 pages and maps, Appendices G through O (Volume IV)--472 pages, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Price Resource management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390868?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 3 of 13]
T2  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36390627; 13129-080028_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations, as well as provision of the associated infrastructure, within a 137,93-acre area, most of which lies in Carbon County; the area lies 30 miles east--northeast of Price. The area is bounded on the west by Sheep Canyon, on the north by Nine Mile Canyon, on the east by Green River, and on the south by a straight line reflecting an anticline in the sub-surface that limits the southern extent of the natural gas resources targeted by the proposal. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce impacts of development within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate in partnership to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: National mineral leasing policies, and the regulations by which they are enforced, recognize the statutory right of leaseholders to develop mineral resources to meet the continuing increase in the demand for natural gas NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance and erosion, affecting vegetation and soil over thousands of acres of disturbed areas, would increase sedimentation and turbidity in surface water flows. Hundreds of tons of soil losses per year would be expected. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Developments would affect the potential of wilderness study areas to maintain extensive enough wilderness values to be eligible for inclusion in the National Wilderness System. Paleontological sites could be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377).
JF  - EPA number: 080028, Draft EIS (Volume I)--211 pages Draft EIS (Volume II)--224 pages, Appendices A through F (Volume III)--99 pages and maps, Appendices G through O (Volume IV)--472 pages, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Price Resource management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390627?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 8 of 19]
T2  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36390606; 13130-080029_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1998. An August 2004 attachment to the revision of the February 1998 draft EIS provided a CD-ROM containing the text of the revised draft. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance streamflows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 05-0258D, Volume 29, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080029, Final EIS--878 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 1)--570 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 2)--321 pages, Water Resources Appendix--966 pages, Biological Resources Appendix--141 pages, Sedimentation and Erosion Appendix--103 pages, Negotiated Agreement Appendix--311 pages, Cultural Resources Appendix--103 pages, Water Quality Appendix--65 pages, Cumulative Effects Appendix--51 pages, Notice of Petitions and Water Appropriation Applications Appendix--19 pages, Comments and Responses Appendix--455 pages, CD-ROM, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 8
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-08
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390606?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 16 of 19]
T2  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36381974; 13130-080029_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1998. An August 2004 attachment to the revision of the February 1998 draft EIS provided a CD-ROM containing the text of the revised draft. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance streamflows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 05-0258D, Volume 29, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080029, Final EIS--878 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 1)--570 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 2)--321 pages, Water Resources Appendix--966 pages, Biological Resources Appendix--141 pages, Sedimentation and Erosion Appendix--103 pages, Negotiated Agreement Appendix--311 pages, Cultural Resources Appendix--103 pages, Water Quality Appendix--65 pages, Cumulative Effects Appendix--51 pages, Notice of Petitions and Water Appropriation Applications Appendix--19 pages, Comments and Responses Appendix--455 pages, CD-ROM, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 16
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-08
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381974?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 14 of 19]
T2  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36381876; 13130-080029_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1998. An August 2004 attachment to the revision of the February 1998 draft EIS provided a CD-ROM containing the text of the revised draft. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance streamflows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 05-0258D, Volume 29, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080029, Final EIS--878 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 1)--570 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 2)--321 pages, Water Resources Appendix--966 pages, Biological Resources Appendix--141 pages, Sedimentation and Erosion Appendix--103 pages, Negotiated Agreement Appendix--311 pages, Cultural Resources Appendix--103 pages, Water Quality Appendix--65 pages, Cumulative Effects Appendix--51 pages, Notice of Petitions and Water Appropriation Applications Appendix--19 pages, Comments and Responses Appendix--455 pages, CD-ROM, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 14
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-08
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381876?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 12 of 19]
T2  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36381802; 13130-080029_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1998. An August 2004 attachment to the revision of the February 1998 draft EIS provided a CD-ROM containing the text of the revised draft. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance streamflows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 05-0258D, Volume 29, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080029, Final EIS--878 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 1)--570 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 2)--321 pages, Water Resources Appendix--966 pages, Biological Resources Appendix--141 pages, Sedimentation and Erosion Appendix--103 pages, Negotiated Agreement Appendix--311 pages, Cultural Resources Appendix--103 pages, Water Quality Appendix--65 pages, Cumulative Effects Appendix--51 pages, Notice of Petitions and Water Appropriation Applications Appendix--19 pages, Comments and Responses Appendix--455 pages, CD-ROM, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 12
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-08
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381802?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080028/080028_0010.txt of 13]
T2  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36381732; 13129-080028_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations, as well as provision of the associated infrastructure, within a 137,93-acre area, most of which lies in Carbon County; the area lies 30 miles east--northeast of Price. The area is bounded on the west by Sheep Canyon, on the north by Nine Mile Canyon, on the east by Green River, and on the south by a straight line reflecting an anticline in the sub-surface that limits the southern extent of the natural gas resources targeted by the proposal. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce impacts of development within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate in partnership to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: National mineral leasing policies, and the regulations by which they are enforced, recognize the statutory right of leaseholders to develop mineral resources to meet the continuing increase in the demand for natural gas NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance and erosion, affecting vegetation and soil over thousands of acres of disturbed areas, would increase sedimentation and turbidity in surface water flows. Hundreds of tons of soil losses per year would be expected. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Developments would affect the potential of wilderness study areas to maintain extensive enough wilderness values to be eligible for inclusion in the National Wilderness System. Paleontological sites could be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377).
JF  - EPA number: 080028, Draft EIS (Volume I)--211 pages Draft EIS (Volume II)--224 pages, Appendices A through F (Volume III)--99 pages and maps, Appendices G through O (Volume IV)--472 pages, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080028/080028_0010.txt
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Price Resource management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381732?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 9 of 13]
T2  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36381661; 13129-080028_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations, as well as provision of the associated infrastructure, within a 137,93-acre area, most of which lies in Carbon County; the area lies 30 miles east--northeast of Price. The area is bounded on the west by Sheep Canyon, on the north by Nine Mile Canyon, on the east by Green River, and on the south by a straight line reflecting an anticline in the sub-surface that limits the southern extent of the natural gas resources targeted by the proposal. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce impacts of development within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate in partnership to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: National mineral leasing policies, and the regulations by which they are enforced, recognize the statutory right of leaseholders to develop mineral resources to meet the continuing increase in the demand for natural gas NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance and erosion, affecting vegetation and soil over thousands of acres of disturbed areas, would increase sedimentation and turbidity in surface water flows. Hundreds of tons of soil losses per year would be expected. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Developments would affect the potential of wilderness study areas to maintain extensive enough wilderness values to be eligible for inclusion in the National Wilderness System. Paleontological sites could be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377).
JF  - EPA number: 080028, Draft EIS (Volume I)--211 pages Draft EIS (Volume II)--224 pages, Appendices A through F (Volume III)--99 pages and maps, Appendices G through O (Volume IV)--472 pages, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 9
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Price Resource management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381661?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 13 of 13]
T2  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36381598; 13129-080028_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations, as well as provision of the associated infrastructure, within a 137,93-acre area, most of which lies in Carbon County; the area lies 30 miles east--northeast of Price. The area is bounded on the west by Sheep Canyon, on the north by Nine Mile Canyon, on the east by Green River, and on the south by a straight line reflecting an anticline in the sub-surface that limits the southern extent of the natural gas resources targeted by the proposal. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce impacts of development within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate in partnership to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: National mineral leasing policies, and the regulations by which they are enforced, recognize the statutory right of leaseholders to develop mineral resources to meet the continuing increase in the demand for natural gas NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance and erosion, affecting vegetation and soil over thousands of acres of disturbed areas, would increase sedimentation and turbidity in surface water flows. Hundreds of tons of soil losses per year would be expected. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Developments would affect the potential of wilderness study areas to maintain extensive enough wilderness values to be eligible for inclusion in the National Wilderness System. Paleontological sites could be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377).
JF  - EPA number: 080028, Draft EIS (Volume I)--211 pages Draft EIS (Volume II)--224 pages, Appendices A through F (Volume III)--99 pages and maps, Appendices G through O (Volume IV)--472 pages, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 13
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Price Resource management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381598?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080029/080029_0010.txt of 19]
T2  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36381571; 13130-080029_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1998. An August 2004 attachment to the revision of the February 1998 draft EIS provided a CD-ROM containing the text of the revised draft. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance streamflows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 05-0258D, Volume 29, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080029, Final EIS--878 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 1)--570 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 2)--321 pages, Water Resources Appendix--966 pages, Biological Resources Appendix--141 pages, Sedimentation and Erosion Appendix--103 pages, Negotiated Agreement Appendix--311 pages, Cultural Resources Appendix--103 pages, Water Quality Appendix--65 pages, Cumulative Effects Appendix--51 pages, Notice of Petitions and Water Appropriation Applications Appendix--19 pages, Comments and Responses Appendix--455 pages, CD-ROM, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080029/080029_0010.txt
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-08
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381571?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 15 of 19]
T2  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36381519; 13130-080029_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1998. An August 2004 attachment to the revision of the February 1998 draft EIS provided a CD-ROM containing the text of the revised draft. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance streamflows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 05-0258D, Volume 29, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080029, Final EIS--878 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 1)--570 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 2)--321 pages, Water Resources Appendix--966 pages, Biological Resources Appendix--141 pages, Sedimentation and Erosion Appendix--103 pages, Negotiated Agreement Appendix--311 pages, Cultural Resources Appendix--103 pages, Water Quality Appendix--65 pages, Cumulative Effects Appendix--51 pages, Notice of Petitions and Water Appropriation Applications Appendix--19 pages, Comments and Responses Appendix--455 pages, CD-ROM, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 15
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-08
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381519?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 9 of 19]
T2  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36381488; 13130-080029_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1998. An August 2004 attachment to the revision of the February 1998 draft EIS provided a CD-ROM containing the text of the revised draft. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance streamflows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 05-0258D, Volume 29, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080029, Final EIS--878 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 1)--570 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 2)--321 pages, Water Resources Appendix--966 pages, Biological Resources Appendix--141 pages, Sedimentation and Erosion Appendix--103 pages, Negotiated Agreement Appendix--311 pages, Cultural Resources Appendix--103 pages, Water Quality Appendix--65 pages, Cumulative Effects Appendix--51 pages, Notice of Petitions and Water Appropriation Applications Appendix--19 pages, Comments and Responses Appendix--455 pages, CD-ROM, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 9
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-08
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381488?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 7 of 19]
T2  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36381455; 13130-080029_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1998. An August 2004 attachment to the revision of the February 1998 draft EIS provided a CD-ROM containing the text of the revised draft. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance streamflows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 05-0258D, Volume 29, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080029, Final EIS--878 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 1)--570 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 2)--321 pages, Water Resources Appendix--966 pages, Biological Resources Appendix--141 pages, Sedimentation and Erosion Appendix--103 pages, Negotiated Agreement Appendix--311 pages, Cultural Resources Appendix--103 pages, Water Quality Appendix--65 pages, Cumulative Effects Appendix--51 pages, Notice of Petitions and Water Appropriation Applications Appendix--19 pages, Comments and Responses Appendix--455 pages, CD-ROM, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-08
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381455?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 17 of 19]
T2  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36381402; 13130-080029_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1998. An August 2004 attachment to the revision of the February 1998 draft EIS provided a CD-ROM containing the text of the revised draft. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance streamflows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 05-0258D, Volume 29, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080029, Final EIS--878 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 1)--570 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 2)--321 pages, Water Resources Appendix--966 pages, Biological Resources Appendix--141 pages, Sedimentation and Erosion Appendix--103 pages, Negotiated Agreement Appendix--311 pages, Cultural Resources Appendix--103 pages, Water Quality Appendix--65 pages, Cumulative Effects Appendix--51 pages, Notice of Petitions and Water Appropriation Applications Appendix--19 pages, Comments and Responses Appendix--455 pages, CD-ROM, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 17
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-08
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381402?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 19]
T2  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36381327; 13130-080029_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1998. An August 2004 attachment to the revision of the February 1998 draft EIS provided a CD-ROM containing the text of the revised draft. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance streamflows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 05-0258D, Volume 29, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080029, Final EIS--878 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 1)--570 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 2)--321 pages, Water Resources Appendix--966 pages, Biological Resources Appendix--141 pages, Sedimentation and Erosion Appendix--103 pages, Negotiated Agreement Appendix--311 pages, Cultural Resources Appendix--103 pages, Water Quality Appendix--65 pages, Cumulative Effects Appendix--51 pages, Notice of Petitions and Water Appropriation Applications Appendix--19 pages, Comments and Responses Appendix--455 pages, CD-ROM, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-08
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381327?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 12 of 13]
T2  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36381253; 13129-080028_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations, as well as provision of the associated infrastructure, within a 137,93-acre area, most of which lies in Carbon County; the area lies 30 miles east--northeast of Price. The area is bounded on the west by Sheep Canyon, on the north by Nine Mile Canyon, on the east by Green River, and on the south by a straight line reflecting an anticline in the sub-surface that limits the southern extent of the natural gas resources targeted by the proposal. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce impacts of development within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate in partnership to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: National mineral leasing policies, and the regulations by which they are enforced, recognize the statutory right of leaseholders to develop mineral resources to meet the continuing increase in the demand for natural gas NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance and erosion, affecting vegetation and soil over thousands of acres of disturbed areas, would increase sedimentation and turbidity in surface water flows. Hundreds of tons of soil losses per year would be expected. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Developments would affect the potential of wilderness study areas to maintain extensive enough wilderness values to be eligible for inclusion in the National Wilderness System. Paleontological sites could be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377).
JF  - EPA number: 080028, Draft EIS (Volume I)--211 pages Draft EIS (Volume II)--224 pages, Appendices A through F (Volume III)--99 pages and maps, Appendices G through O (Volume IV)--472 pages, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 12
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Price Resource management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381253?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 6 of 13]
T2  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36381198; 13129-080028_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations, as well as provision of the associated infrastructure, within a 137,93-acre area, most of which lies in Carbon County; the area lies 30 miles east--northeast of Price. The area is bounded on the west by Sheep Canyon, on the north by Nine Mile Canyon, on the east by Green River, and on the south by a straight line reflecting an anticline in the sub-surface that limits the southern extent of the natural gas resources targeted by the proposal. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce impacts of development within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate in partnership to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: National mineral leasing policies, and the regulations by which they are enforced, recognize the statutory right of leaseholders to develop mineral resources to meet the continuing increase in the demand for natural gas NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance and erosion, affecting vegetation and soil over thousands of acres of disturbed areas, would increase sedimentation and turbidity in surface water flows. Hundreds of tons of soil losses per year would be expected. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Developments would affect the potential of wilderness study areas to maintain extensive enough wilderness values to be eligible for inclusion in the National Wilderness System. Paleontological sites could be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377).
JF  - EPA number: 080028, Draft EIS (Volume I)--211 pages Draft EIS (Volume II)--224 pages, Appendices A through F (Volume III)--99 pages and maps, Appendices G through O (Volume IV)--472 pages, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Price Resource management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381198?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 11 of 19]
T2  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36381170; 13130-080029_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1998. An August 2004 attachment to the revision of the February 1998 draft EIS provided a CD-ROM containing the text of the revised draft. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance streamflows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 05-0258D, Volume 29, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080029, Final EIS--878 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 1)--570 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 2)--321 pages, Water Resources Appendix--966 pages, Biological Resources Appendix--141 pages, Sedimentation and Erosion Appendix--103 pages, Negotiated Agreement Appendix--311 pages, Cultural Resources Appendix--103 pages, Water Quality Appendix--65 pages, Cumulative Effects Appendix--51 pages, Notice of Petitions and Water Appropriation Applications Appendix--19 pages, Comments and Responses Appendix--455 pages, CD-ROM, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 11
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-08
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381170?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 19]
T2  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36381107; 13130-080029_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1998. An August 2004 attachment to the revision of the February 1998 draft EIS provided a CD-ROM containing the text of the revised draft. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance streamflows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 05-0258D, Volume 29, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080029, Final EIS--878 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 1)--570 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 2)--321 pages, Water Resources Appendix--966 pages, Biological Resources Appendix--141 pages, Sedimentation and Erosion Appendix--103 pages, Negotiated Agreement Appendix--311 pages, Cultural Resources Appendix--103 pages, Water Quality Appendix--65 pages, Cumulative Effects Appendix--51 pages, Notice of Petitions and Water Appropriation Applications Appendix--19 pages, Comments and Responses Appendix--455 pages, CD-ROM, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-08
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381107?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 4 of 13]
T2  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36381105; 13129-080028_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations, as well as provision of the associated infrastructure, within a 137,93-acre area, most of which lies in Carbon County; the area lies 30 miles east--northeast of Price. The area is bounded on the west by Sheep Canyon, on the north by Nine Mile Canyon, on the east by Green River, and on the south by a straight line reflecting an anticline in the sub-surface that limits the southern extent of the natural gas resources targeted by the proposal. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce impacts of development within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate in partnership to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: National mineral leasing policies, and the regulations by which they are enforced, recognize the statutory right of leaseholders to develop mineral resources to meet the continuing increase in the demand for natural gas NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance and erosion, affecting vegetation and soil over thousands of acres of disturbed areas, would increase sedimentation and turbidity in surface water flows. Hundreds of tons of soil losses per year would be expected. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Developments would affect the potential of wilderness study areas to maintain extensive enough wilderness values to be eligible for inclusion in the National Wilderness System. Paleontological sites could be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377).
JF  - EPA number: 080028, Draft EIS (Volume I)--211 pages Draft EIS (Volume II)--224 pages, Appendices A through F (Volume III)--99 pages and maps, Appendices G through O (Volume IV)--472 pages, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Price Resource management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381105?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 2 of 13]
T2  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36381035; 13129-080028_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations, as well as provision of the associated infrastructure, within a 137,93-acre area, most of which lies in Carbon County; the area lies 30 miles east--northeast of Price. The area is bounded on the west by Sheep Canyon, on the north by Nine Mile Canyon, on the east by Green River, and on the south by a straight line reflecting an anticline in the sub-surface that limits the southern extent of the natural gas resources targeted by the proposal. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce impacts of development within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate in partnership to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: National mineral leasing policies, and the regulations by which they are enforced, recognize the statutory right of leaseholders to develop mineral resources to meet the continuing increase in the demand for natural gas NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance and erosion, affecting vegetation and soil over thousands of acres of disturbed areas, would increase sedimentation and turbidity in surface water flows. Hundreds of tons of soil losses per year would be expected. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Developments would affect the potential of wilderness study areas to maintain extensive enough wilderness values to be eligible for inclusion in the National Wilderness System. Paleontological sites could be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377).
JF  - EPA number: 080028, Draft EIS (Volume I)--211 pages Draft EIS (Volume II)--224 pages, Appendices A through F (Volume III)--99 pages and maps, Appendices G through O (Volume IV)--472 pages, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Price Resource management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381035?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 19]
T2  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36381031; 13130-080029_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1998. An August 2004 attachment to the revision of the February 1998 draft EIS provided a CD-ROM containing the text of the revised draft. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance streamflows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 05-0258D, Volume 29, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080029, Final EIS--878 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 1)--570 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 2)--321 pages, Water Resources Appendix--966 pages, Biological Resources Appendix--141 pages, Sedimentation and Erosion Appendix--103 pages, Negotiated Agreement Appendix--311 pages, Cultural Resources Appendix--103 pages, Water Quality Appendix--65 pages, Cumulative Effects Appendix--51 pages, Notice of Petitions and Water Appropriation Applications Appendix--19 pages, Comments and Responses Appendix--455 pages, CD-ROM, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-08
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381031?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 11 of 13]
T2  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36380927; 13129-080028_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations, as well as provision of the associated infrastructure, within a 137,93-acre area, most of which lies in Carbon County; the area lies 30 miles east--northeast of Price. The area is bounded on the west by Sheep Canyon, on the north by Nine Mile Canyon, on the east by Green River, and on the south by a straight line reflecting an anticline in the sub-surface that limits the southern extent of the natural gas resources targeted by the proposal. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce impacts of development within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate in partnership to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: National mineral leasing policies, and the regulations by which they are enforced, recognize the statutory right of leaseholders to develop mineral resources to meet the continuing increase in the demand for natural gas NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance and erosion, affecting vegetation and soil over thousands of acres of disturbed areas, would increase sedimentation and turbidity in surface water flows. Hundreds of tons of soil losses per year would be expected. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Developments would affect the potential of wilderness study areas to maintain extensive enough wilderness values to be eligible for inclusion in the National Wilderness System. Paleontological sites could be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377).
JF  - EPA number: 080028, Draft EIS (Volume I)--211 pages Draft EIS (Volume II)--224 pages, Appendices A through F (Volume III)--99 pages and maps, Appendices G through O (Volume IV)--472 pages, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 11
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Price Resource management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380927?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 5 of 13]
T2  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36380827; 13129-080028_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations, as well as provision of the associated infrastructure, within a 137,93-acre area, most of which lies in Carbon County; the area lies 30 miles east--northeast of Price. The area is bounded on the west by Sheep Canyon, on the north by Nine Mile Canyon, on the east by Green River, and on the south by a straight line reflecting an anticline in the sub-surface that limits the southern extent of the natural gas resources targeted by the proposal. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce impacts of development within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate in partnership to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: National mineral leasing policies, and the regulations by which they are enforced, recognize the statutory right of leaseholders to develop mineral resources to meet the continuing increase in the demand for natural gas NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance and erosion, affecting vegetation and soil over thousands of acres of disturbed areas, would increase sedimentation and turbidity in surface water flows. Hundreds of tons of soil losses per year would be expected. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Developments would affect the potential of wilderness study areas to maintain extensive enough wilderness values to be eligible for inclusion in the National Wilderness System. Paleontological sites could be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377).
JF  - EPA number: 080028, Draft EIS (Volume I)--211 pages Draft EIS (Volume II)--224 pages, Appendices A through F (Volume III)--99 pages and maps, Appendices G through O (Volume IV)--472 pages, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Price Resource management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380827?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 19]
T2  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36380715; 13130-080029_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1998. An August 2004 attachment to the revision of the February 1998 draft EIS provided a CD-ROM containing the text of the revised draft. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance streamflows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 05-0258D, Volume 29, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080029, Final EIS--878 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 1)--570 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 2)--321 pages, Water Resources Appendix--966 pages, Biological Resources Appendix--141 pages, Sedimentation and Erosion Appendix--103 pages, Negotiated Agreement Appendix--311 pages, Cultural Resources Appendix--103 pages, Water Quality Appendix--65 pages, Cumulative Effects Appendix--51 pages, Notice of Petitions and Water Appropriation Applications Appendix--19 pages, Comments and Responses Appendix--455 pages, CD-ROM, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-08
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380715?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 13]
T2  - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36380589; 13129-080028_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations, as well as provision of the associated infrastructure, within a 137,93-acre area, most of which lies in Carbon County; the area lies 30 miles east--northeast of Price. The area is bounded on the west by Sheep Canyon, on the north by Nine Mile Canyon, on the east by Green River, and on the south by a straight line reflecting an anticline in the sub-surface that limits the southern extent of the natural gas resources targeted by the proposal. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce impacts of development within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate in partnership to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: National mineral leasing policies, and the regulations by which they are enforced, recognize the statutory right of leaseholders to develop mineral resources to meet the continuing increase in the demand for natural gas NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance and erosion, affecting vegetation and soil over thousands of acres of disturbed areas, would increase sedimentation and turbidity in surface water flows. Hundreds of tons of soil losses per year would be expected. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Developments would affect the potential of wilderness study areas to maintain extensive enough wilderness values to be eligible for inclusion in the National Wilderness System. Paleontological sites could be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377).
JF  - EPA number: 080028, Draft EIS (Volume I)--211 pages Draft EIS (Volume II)--224 pages, Appendices A through F (Volume III)--99 pages and maps, Appendices G through O (Volume IV)--472 pages, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Price Resource management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380589?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 19 of 19]
T2  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36379582; 13130-080029_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1998. An August 2004 attachment to the revision of the February 1998 draft EIS provided a CD-ROM containing the text of the revised draft. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance streamflows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 05-0258D, Volume 29, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080029, Final EIS--878 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 1)--570 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 2)--321 pages, Water Resources Appendix--966 pages, Biological Resources Appendix--141 pages, Sedimentation and Erosion Appendix--103 pages, Negotiated Agreement Appendix--311 pages, Cultural Resources Appendix--103 pages, Water Quality Appendix--65 pages, Cumulative Effects Appendix--51 pages, Notice of Petitions and Water Appropriation Applications Appendix--19 pages, Comments and Responses Appendix--455 pages, CD-ROM, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 19
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-08
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379582?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 18 of 19]
T2  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36374600; 13130-080029_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1998. An August 2004 attachment to the revision of the February 1998 draft EIS provided a CD-ROM containing the text of the revised draft. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance streamflows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 05-0258D, Volume 29, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080029, Final EIS--878 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 1)--570 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 2)--321 pages, Water Resources Appendix--966 pages, Biological Resources Appendix--141 pages, Sedimentation and Erosion Appendix--103 pages, Negotiated Agreement Appendix--311 pages, Cultural Resources Appendix--103 pages, Water Quality Appendix--65 pages, Cumulative Effects Appendix--51 pages, Notice of Petitions and Water Appropriation Applications Appendix--19 pages, Comments and Responses Appendix--455 pages, CD-ROM, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 18
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-08
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374600?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 13 of 19]
T2  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36374525; 13130-080029_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1998. An August 2004 attachment to the revision of the February 1998 draft EIS provided a CD-ROM containing the text of the revised draft. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance streamflows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 05-0258D, Volume 29, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080029, Final EIS--878 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 1)--570 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 2)--321 pages, Water Resources Appendix--966 pages, Biological Resources Appendix--141 pages, Sedimentation and Erosion Appendix--103 pages, Negotiated Agreement Appendix--311 pages, Cultural Resources Appendix--103 pages, Water Quality Appendix--65 pages, Cumulative Effects Appendix--51 pages, Notice of Petitions and Water Appropriation Applications Appendix--19 pages, Comments and Responses Appendix--455 pages, CD-ROM, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 13
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-08
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374525?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 19]
T2  - TRUCKEE RIVER OPERATING AGREEMENT; PLACER AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA, AND DOUGLAS, LYON, STOREY, AND WASHOE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36374443; 13130-080029_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of reservoir operations in the Truckee River basin located in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California, is proposed. The Upper Truckee River has its headwaters in California's Sierra Nevada, from which it flows into the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The Truckee River originates at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, flows about 105 miles through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada, and terminates in Pyramid Lake. The Truckee River basin includes the area that drains naturally to the Truckee River and its tributaries, into Lake Tahoe, and into Pyramid Lake. Although primarily stored in California, most of the water of the Truckee River is used in Nevada to meet the municipal and industrial demands in Truckee Meadows, fish requirements, and hydropower and irrigation demands. On average, about one-fifth of the Truckee River's annual flow is diverted through the Truckee Canal to irrigate agricultural lands in the Bureau of Reclamation's Newlands Project. Changes in water flow are needed in order to conserve the endangered and threatened fishes of Pyramid Lake (cuiui and Lahontan cutthroat trout) and to meet the water demands of Truckee Meadows during drought conditions. Issues of concern include the effects on water resources, water quality, biological resources of lakes and reservoirs, biological resources of rivers and tributaries, recreation resources, Indian Trust assets, socioeconomic and cultural resources, and endangered, threatened, and other special status species. Also of concern is the effect of sedimentation and erosion. Four alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS; the original draft EIS was published in February 1998. An August 2004 attachment to the revision of the February 1998 draft EIS provided a CD-ROM containing the text of the revised draft. Under the proposed water agreement (the Truckee River Operating Agreement Alternative), signatories would be allowed to retain in storage all or a portion of the water that they were previously entitled to divert from the Truckee River. When such water was in storage, it would be classified by categories, and records would be kept of the storage and release of such water. In addition, the water stored in individual Truckee River reservoirs would be allowed to be exchanged with storage in other Truckee River reservoirs. A scheduled release from one reservoir could be substituted for a release from another reservoir, and the respective water accounts in each reservoir would be credited and debited as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a reliable and demand-responsive water system for region, increasing water supply during drought conditions, enhancing spawning flows for Pyramid Lake fishes, enhancing instream flows and water quality, and maintaining reservoir storage levels to serve recreational uses. The plan would enhance conditions for endangered and threatened fish species throughout the Truckee River basin, increase municipal and industrial drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area), improve river water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada, and enhance streamflows and recreational opportunities in the river basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the water quality of the Truckee River downstream from the agreement area could violate standards during dry periods. A slight decrease in hydropower generation and revenues would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Public Law 101-618. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the revised draft EIS, see 98-0142D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 05-0258D, Volume 29, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080029, Final EIS--878 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 1)--570 pages, Economics and Recreation Appendix (Volume 2)--321 pages, Water Resources Appendix--966 pages, Biological Resources Appendix--141 pages, Sedimentation and Erosion Appendix--103 pages, Negotiated Agreement Appendix--311 pages, Cultural Resources Appendix--103 pages, Water Quality Appendix--65 pages, Cumulative Effects Appendix--51 pages, Notice of Petitions and Water Appropriation Applications Appendix--19 pages, Comments and Responses Appendix--455 pages, CD-ROM, January 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 98-08
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Sediment Assessments
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Truckee River
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Public Law 101-618, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374443?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TRUCKEE+RIVER+OPERATING+AGREEMENT%3B+PLACER+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+AND+DOUGLAS%2C+LYON%2C+STOREY%2C+AND+WASHOE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WESTSIDE LAND CONVEYANCE PROJECT, BIG HORN AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 36406130; 13117
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of approximately 16,000 acres of public land located in Bir Horn and Washakie counties, Wyoming and administered by the Bureau of Land Management, to the Westside Irrigation District (District) is proposed. Under the proposed action, the BLM would sell to the District all rights, title, and interest in the selected lands, except for mineral rights amounting to approximately 16,500 acres. The BLM would appraise the lands following Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition and the District would be charged the appraised value. The proceeds from the sale would be used for the acquisition of land and interests in the Worland District of the BLM and manage the acquired lands for public recreation, public access, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, and cultural resource protection. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to wildlife habitat, water quality and flow volumes in the Bighorn River, and cultural and paleontological resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The action alternatives include the proposed alternative, which is a legislatively mandated action, and an alternative under which only those lands suitable for irrigation would be transferred. The BLM's preferred alternative is the more limited land transfer, including only arable land. After the sale and conveyance of the land, it is anticipated that the District would offer the land for sale in parcels of no less than 160 acres per individual, to be used for agricultural purposes. The District would select qualified individuals through a lottery. Successful individuals would then be required to be members of, and their lands included in, the District. However, this is merely an anticipated scenario based on current planning by the District. It is possible these plans could change. The legislative mandate places no restrictions on the eventual disposal or uses of the land transferred and the BLM would exercise no regulatory control following the transfer. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would allow the District to address its specific land acquisition, development, and water supply management needs. The use of the proceeds of the sale by the BLM to purchase private inholdings within the Worland District would allow for the regulated preservation of those lands and/or multiple-use sustained yield management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As mentioned, once the land is transferred to the District, the BLM would exert no regulatory control over uses of the resources within the boundaries of the transferred area, excepting mineral entry. As a result, exploitative uses, including, but not limited to, agriculture, would affect wildlife habitat and other natural resources within the area. Irrigation withdrawals from the Bighorn River would reduce downstream yield, and agricultural uses would also contribute fertilizer-related pollutants to the flow. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Public Law 106-485.
JF  - EPA number: 080015, 242 pages, January 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-08/003+5440
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 106-485, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36406130?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WESTSIDE+LAND+CONVEYANCE+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WESTSIDE+LAND+CONVEYANCE+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN+AND+WASHAKIE+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, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WESTSIDE LAND CONVEYANCE PROJECT, BIG HORN AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - WESTSIDE LAND CONVEYANCE PROJECT, BIG HORN AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 36380355; 13117-080015_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of approximately 16,000 acres of public land located in Bir Horn and Washakie counties, Wyoming and administered by the Bureau of Land Management, to the Westside Irrigation District (District) is proposed. Under the proposed action, the BLM would sell to the District all rights, title, and interest in the selected lands, except for mineral rights amounting to approximately 16,500 acres. The BLM would appraise the lands following Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition and the District would be charged the appraised value. The proceeds from the sale would be used for the acquisition of land and interests in the Worland District of the BLM and manage the acquired lands for public recreation, public access, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, and cultural resource protection. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to wildlife habitat, water quality and flow volumes in the Bighorn River, and cultural and paleontological resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The action alternatives include the proposed alternative, which is a legislatively mandated action, and an alternative under which only those lands suitable for irrigation would be transferred. The BLM's preferred alternative is the more limited land transfer, including only arable land. After the sale and conveyance of the land, it is anticipated that the District would offer the land for sale in parcels of no less than 160 acres per individual, to be used for agricultural purposes. The District would select qualified individuals through a lottery. Successful individuals would then be required to be members of, and their lands included in, the District. However, this is merely an anticipated scenario based on current planning by the District. It is possible these plans could change. The legislative mandate places no restrictions on the eventual disposal or uses of the land transferred and the BLM would exercise no regulatory control following the transfer. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would allow the District to address its specific land acquisition, development, and water supply management needs. The use of the proceeds of the sale by the BLM to purchase private inholdings within the Worland District would allow for the regulated preservation of those lands and/or multiple-use sustained yield management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As mentioned, once the land is transferred to the District, the BLM would exert no regulatory control over uses of the resources within the boundaries of the transferred area, excepting mineral entry. As a result, exploitative uses, including, but not limited to, agriculture, would affect wildlife habitat and other natural resources within the area. Irrigation withdrawals from the Bighorn River would reduce downstream yield, and agricultural uses would also contribute fertilizer-related pollutants to the flow. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Public Law 106-485.
JF  - EPA number: 080015, 242 pages, January 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-08/003+5440
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 106-485, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380355?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WESTSIDE+LAND+CONVEYANCE+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WESTSIDE+LAND+CONVEYANCE+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN+AND+WASHAKIE+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, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WESTSIDE LAND CONVEYANCE PROJECT, BIG HORN AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - WESTSIDE LAND CONVEYANCE PROJECT, BIG HORN AND WASHAKIE COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 36380070; 13117-080015_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of approximately 16,000 acres of public land located in Bir Horn and Washakie counties, Wyoming and administered by the Bureau of Land Management, to the Westside Irrigation District (District) is proposed. Under the proposed action, the BLM would sell to the District all rights, title, and interest in the selected lands, except for mineral rights amounting to approximately 16,500 acres. The BLM would appraise the lands following Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition and the District would be charged the appraised value. The proceeds from the sale would be used for the acquisition of land and interests in the Worland District of the BLM and manage the acquired lands for public recreation, public access, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, and cultural resource protection. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to wildlife habitat, water quality and flow volumes in the Bighorn River, and cultural and paleontological resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The action alternatives include the proposed alternative, which is a legislatively mandated action, and an alternative under which only those lands suitable for irrigation would be transferred. The BLM's preferred alternative is the more limited land transfer, including only arable land. After the sale and conveyance of the land, it is anticipated that the District would offer the land for sale in parcels of no less than 160 acres per individual, to be used for agricultural purposes. The District would select qualified individuals through a lottery. Successful individuals would then be required to be members of, and their lands included in, the District. However, this is merely an anticipated scenario based on current planning by the District. It is possible these plans could change. The legislative mandate places no restrictions on the eventual disposal or uses of the land transferred and the BLM would exercise no regulatory control following the transfer. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would allow the District to address its specific land acquisition, development, and water supply management needs. The use of the proceeds of the sale by the BLM to purchase private inholdings within the Worland District would allow for the regulated preservation of those lands and/or multiple-use sustained yield management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As mentioned, once the land is transferred to the District, the BLM would exert no regulatory control over uses of the resources within the boundaries of the transferred area, excepting mineral entry. As a result, exploitative uses, including, but not limited to, agriculture, would affect wildlife habitat and other natural resources within the area. Irrigation withdrawals from the Bighorn River would reduce downstream yield, and agricultural uses would also contribute fertilizer-related pollutants to the flow. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Public Law 106-485.
JF  - EPA number: 080015, 242 pages, January 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-08/003+5440
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 106-485, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380070?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WESTSIDE+LAND+CONVEYANCE+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN+AND+WASHAKIE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WESTSIDE+LAND+CONVEYANCE+PROJECT%2C+BIG+HORN+AND+WASHAKIE+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, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, PUERTO RICO.
AN  - 36409434; 13116
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for San Juan Island National Historical Park in Puerto Rico is proposed. The island is the second largest island of the San Juan archipelago, which is situated in northwestern Washington between the southern tip of Vancouver Island, British Columbia and the United States mainland. The historical park, which was established by Congress in 1966, commemorates and preserves the 1,223-acre American Camp and the 1,752-acre English Camp. The boundary of the English Camp includes an offshore island known as Guss Island. The camps were connected to activities in the period between 1852 and 1871 on the island in connection with the final settlement of the Oregon Territory boundary dispute between the British and American governments. The marine ecosystems surrounding these units and their six miles of publicly accessible shoreline are renowned for their scenery. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) The general concept for Alternative B would result in increased visitor use opportunities and outreach a t both English Camp and American Camp and in the town of Friday Harbor through additional visitor facilities, recreational opportunities, programs, and services, Interpretation would be enhanced for both cultural and natural interpretive themes through more extensive facilities and programs. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would broaden the scope of resource management and interpretation programs to emphasize the connections and interrelationships between the park's natural and cultural resources. New facilities, trails, and programs would provide opportunities for visitors to understand the importance of the park's natural resources in defining the cultural landscapes and influencing the settlement and historic events of San Juan Island. At English Camp, the Crook House would be retained, stabilized, and used as an exterior exhibit with interpretive signs and displays that tell the story of the Crook family. The educational camp wuold be relocated within English Camp along the administrative road and set back into the woods. The hospital would be rehabilitated and opened to the public. The 1979 double-wide trailer that serves as the temporary visitor center at American Camp would be removed and replaced with a permanent visitor center at the existing site, allowing for improved exhibits and more staff space. A collections study room for natural and cultural resource items, including a portion of military-era collections would be relocated to the park. The collections study room would be located at the park headquarters or at the permanent visitor center and would be easily accessible to park staff. The pre-history collections would be retained at the University of Washington's Burke Museum in Seattle. The existing road to the resource off Pickett's Lane would be removed and converted to a trail. In the officers' quarters duplex, half would be rehabilitated for use as an interpretive exhibit that shows a typical officers' quarters and the other half would be available as a study house. The cultural landscapes would be enhanced to aid visitor understanding and interpretation through a variety of techniques. The prairie would be restored to native plant species. Historic buildings from the encampment period would be repatriated to their original locations. Off-island interpretation would be enhanced through partnerships. The park would propose boundary adjustments at both camps to include important natural and cultural resources related to the purpose of the park. Development costs and annual recurring costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at 7.5 million and $1.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protection, preservation, and interpretation of the historic camps and other sites would be ensured and enhanced. The importance of the island in military history would be emphasized. Increased visitation would increase recreational expenditures in local communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of the cultural landscape could result in short- and long-term disturbances to soil and vegetation and alteration of topography in some areas. Surface water quality on the island property could be affected by landscape rehabilitation and management and increased visitor use.
JF  - EPA number: 080014, 289 pages and maps, January 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Islands
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Trails
KW  - Washington
KW  - San Juan Island National Historical Park
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36409434?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, PUERTO RICO. [Part 1 of 5]
T2  - SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, PUERTO RICO.
AN  - 36391172; 13116-080014_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for San Juan Island National Historical Park in Puerto Rico is proposed. The island is the second largest island of the San Juan archipelago, which is situated in northwestern Washington between the southern tip of Vancouver Island, British Columbia and the United States mainland. The historical park, which was established by Congress in 1966, commemorates and preserves the 1,223-acre American Camp and the 1,752-acre English Camp. The boundary of the English Camp includes an offshore island known as Guss Island. The camps were connected to activities in the period between 1852 and 1871 on the island in connection with the final settlement of the Oregon Territory boundary dispute between the British and American governments. The marine ecosystems surrounding these units and their six miles of publicly accessible shoreline are renowned for their scenery. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) The general concept for Alternative B would result in increased visitor use opportunities and outreach a t both English Camp and American Camp and in the town of Friday Harbor through additional visitor facilities, recreational opportunities, programs, and services, Interpretation would be enhanced for both cultural and natural interpretive themes through more extensive facilities and programs. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would broaden the scope of resource management and interpretation programs to emphasize the connections and interrelationships between the park's natural and cultural resources. New facilities, trails, and programs would provide opportunities for visitors to understand the importance of the park's natural resources in defining the cultural landscapes and influencing the settlement and historic events of San Juan Island. At English Camp, the Crook House would be retained, stabilized, and used as an exterior exhibit with interpretive signs and displays that tell the story of the Crook family. The educational camp wuold be relocated within English Camp along the administrative road and set back into the woods. The hospital would be rehabilitated and opened to the public. The 1979 double-wide trailer that serves as the temporary visitor center at American Camp would be removed and replaced with a permanent visitor center at the existing site, allowing for improved exhibits and more staff space. A collections study room for natural and cultural resource items, including a portion of military-era collections would be relocated to the park. The collections study room would be located at the park headquarters or at the permanent visitor center and would be easily accessible to park staff. The pre-history collections would be retained at the University of Washington's Burke Museum in Seattle. The existing road to the resource off Pickett's Lane would be removed and converted to a trail. In the officers' quarters duplex, half would be rehabilitated for use as an interpretive exhibit that shows a typical officers' quarters and the other half would be available as a study house. The cultural landscapes would be enhanced to aid visitor understanding and interpretation through a variety of techniques. The prairie would be restored to native plant species. Historic buildings from the encampment period would be repatriated to their original locations. Off-island interpretation would be enhanced through partnerships. The park would propose boundary adjustments at both camps to include important natural and cultural resources related to the purpose of the park. Development costs and annual recurring costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at 7.5 million and $1.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protection, preservation, and interpretation of the historic camps and other sites would be ensured and enhanced. The importance of the island in military history would be emphasized. Increased visitation would increase recreational expenditures in local communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of the cultural landscape could result in short- and long-term disturbances to soil and vegetation and alteration of topography in some areas. Surface water quality on the island property could be affected by landscape rehabilitation and management and increased visitor use.
JF  - EPA number: 080014, 289 pages and maps, January 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Islands
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Trails
KW  - Washington
KW  - San Juan Island National Historical Park
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391172?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, PUERTO RICO. [Part 5 of 5]
T2  - SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, PUERTO RICO.
AN  - 36390884; 13116-080014_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for San Juan Island National Historical Park in Puerto Rico is proposed. The island is the second largest island of the San Juan archipelago, which is situated in northwestern Washington between the southern tip of Vancouver Island, British Columbia and the United States mainland. The historical park, which was established by Congress in 1966, commemorates and preserves the 1,223-acre American Camp and the 1,752-acre English Camp. The boundary of the English Camp includes an offshore island known as Guss Island. The camps were connected to activities in the period between 1852 and 1871 on the island in connection with the final settlement of the Oregon Territory boundary dispute between the British and American governments. The marine ecosystems surrounding these units and their six miles of publicly accessible shoreline are renowned for their scenery. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) The general concept for Alternative B would result in increased visitor use opportunities and outreach a t both English Camp and American Camp and in the town of Friday Harbor through additional visitor facilities, recreational opportunities, programs, and services, Interpretation would be enhanced for both cultural and natural interpretive themes through more extensive facilities and programs. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would broaden the scope of resource management and interpretation programs to emphasize the connections and interrelationships between the park's natural and cultural resources. New facilities, trails, and programs would provide opportunities for visitors to understand the importance of the park's natural resources in defining the cultural landscapes and influencing the settlement and historic events of San Juan Island. At English Camp, the Crook House would be retained, stabilized, and used as an exterior exhibit with interpretive signs and displays that tell the story of the Crook family. The educational camp wuold be relocated within English Camp along the administrative road and set back into the woods. The hospital would be rehabilitated and opened to the public. The 1979 double-wide trailer that serves as the temporary visitor center at American Camp would be removed and replaced with a permanent visitor center at the existing site, allowing for improved exhibits and more staff space. A collections study room for natural and cultural resource items, including a portion of military-era collections would be relocated to the park. The collections study room would be located at the park headquarters or at the permanent visitor center and would be easily accessible to park staff. The pre-history collections would be retained at the University of Washington's Burke Museum in Seattle. The existing road to the resource off Pickett's Lane would be removed and converted to a trail. In the officers' quarters duplex, half would be rehabilitated for use as an interpretive exhibit that shows a typical officers' quarters and the other half would be available as a study house. The cultural landscapes would be enhanced to aid visitor understanding and interpretation through a variety of techniques. The prairie would be restored to native plant species. Historic buildings from the encampment period would be repatriated to their original locations. Off-island interpretation would be enhanced through partnerships. The park would propose boundary adjustments at both camps to include important natural and cultural resources related to the purpose of the park. Development costs and annual recurring costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at 7.5 million and $1.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protection, preservation, and interpretation of the historic camps and other sites would be ensured and enhanced. The importance of the island in military history would be emphasized. Increased visitation would increase recreational expenditures in local communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of the cultural landscape could result in short- and long-term disturbances to soil and vegetation and alteration of topography in some areas. Surface water quality on the island property could be affected by landscape rehabilitation and management and increased visitor use.
JF  - EPA number: 080014, 289 pages and maps, January 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Islands
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Trails
KW  - Washington
KW  - San Juan Island National Historical Park
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390884?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, PUERTO RICO. [Part 2 of 5]
T2  - SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, PUERTO RICO.
AN  - 36381825; 13116-080014_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for San Juan Island National Historical Park in Puerto Rico is proposed. The island is the second largest island of the San Juan archipelago, which is situated in northwestern Washington between the southern tip of Vancouver Island, British Columbia and the United States mainland. The historical park, which was established by Congress in 1966, commemorates and preserves the 1,223-acre American Camp and the 1,752-acre English Camp. The boundary of the English Camp includes an offshore island known as Guss Island. The camps were connected to activities in the period between 1852 and 1871 on the island in connection with the final settlement of the Oregon Territory boundary dispute between the British and American governments. The marine ecosystems surrounding these units and their six miles of publicly accessible shoreline are renowned for their scenery. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) The general concept for Alternative B would result in increased visitor use opportunities and outreach a t both English Camp and American Camp and in the town of Friday Harbor through additional visitor facilities, recreational opportunities, programs, and services, Interpretation would be enhanced for both cultural and natural interpretive themes through more extensive facilities and programs. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would broaden the scope of resource management and interpretation programs to emphasize the connections and interrelationships between the park's natural and cultural resources. New facilities, trails, and programs would provide opportunities for visitors to understand the importance of the park's natural resources in defining the cultural landscapes and influencing the settlement and historic events of San Juan Island. At English Camp, the Crook House would be retained, stabilized, and used as an exterior exhibit with interpretive signs and displays that tell the story of the Crook family. The educational camp wuold be relocated within English Camp along the administrative road and set back into the woods. The hospital would be rehabilitated and opened to the public. The 1979 double-wide trailer that serves as the temporary visitor center at American Camp would be removed and replaced with a permanent visitor center at the existing site, allowing for improved exhibits and more staff space. A collections study room for natural and cultural resource items, including a portion of military-era collections would be relocated to the park. The collections study room would be located at the park headquarters or at the permanent visitor center and would be easily accessible to park staff. The pre-history collections would be retained at the University of Washington's Burke Museum in Seattle. The existing road to the resource off Pickett's Lane would be removed and converted to a trail. In the officers' quarters duplex, half would be rehabilitated for use as an interpretive exhibit that shows a typical officers' quarters and the other half would be available as a study house. The cultural landscapes would be enhanced to aid visitor understanding and interpretation through a variety of techniques. The prairie would be restored to native plant species. Historic buildings from the encampment period would be repatriated to their original locations. Off-island interpretation would be enhanced through partnerships. The park would propose boundary adjustments at both camps to include important natural and cultural resources related to the purpose of the park. Development costs and annual recurring costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at 7.5 million and $1.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protection, preservation, and interpretation of the historic camps and other sites would be ensured and enhanced. The importance of the island in military history would be emphasized. Increased visitation would increase recreational expenditures in local communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of the cultural landscape could result in short- and long-term disturbances to soil and vegetation and alteration of topography in some areas. Surface water quality on the island property could be affected by landscape rehabilitation and management and increased visitor use.
JF  - EPA number: 080014, 289 pages and maps, January 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Islands
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Trails
KW  - Washington
KW  - San Juan Island National Historical Park
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381825?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, PUERTO RICO. [Part 3 of 5]
T2  - SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, PUERTO RICO.
AN  - 36381619; 13116-080014_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for San Juan Island National Historical Park in Puerto Rico is proposed. The island is the second largest island of the San Juan archipelago, which is situated in northwestern Washington between the southern tip of Vancouver Island, British Columbia and the United States mainland. The historical park, which was established by Congress in 1966, commemorates and preserves the 1,223-acre American Camp and the 1,752-acre English Camp. The boundary of the English Camp includes an offshore island known as Guss Island. The camps were connected to activities in the period between 1852 and 1871 on the island in connection with the final settlement of the Oregon Territory boundary dispute between the British and American governments. The marine ecosystems surrounding these units and their six miles of publicly accessible shoreline are renowned for their scenery. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) The general concept for Alternative B would result in increased visitor use opportunities and outreach a t both English Camp and American Camp and in the town of Friday Harbor through additional visitor facilities, recreational opportunities, programs, and services, Interpretation would be enhanced for both cultural and natural interpretive themes through more extensive facilities and programs. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would broaden the scope of resource management and interpretation programs to emphasize the connections and interrelationships between the park's natural and cultural resources. New facilities, trails, and programs would provide opportunities for visitors to understand the importance of the park's natural resources in defining the cultural landscapes and influencing the settlement and historic events of San Juan Island. At English Camp, the Crook House would be retained, stabilized, and used as an exterior exhibit with interpretive signs and displays that tell the story of the Crook family. The educational camp wuold be relocated within English Camp along the administrative road and set back into the woods. The hospital would be rehabilitated and opened to the public. The 1979 double-wide trailer that serves as the temporary visitor center at American Camp would be removed and replaced with a permanent visitor center at the existing site, allowing for improved exhibits and more staff space. A collections study room for natural and cultural resource items, including a portion of military-era collections would be relocated to the park. The collections study room would be located at the park headquarters or at the permanent visitor center and would be easily accessible to park staff. The pre-history collections would be retained at the University of Washington's Burke Museum in Seattle. The existing road to the resource off Pickett's Lane would be removed and converted to a trail. In the officers' quarters duplex, half would be rehabilitated for use as an interpretive exhibit that shows a typical officers' quarters and the other half would be available as a study house. The cultural landscapes would be enhanced to aid visitor understanding and interpretation through a variety of techniques. The prairie would be restored to native plant species. Historic buildings from the encampment period would be repatriated to their original locations. Off-island interpretation would be enhanced through partnerships. The park would propose boundary adjustments at both camps to include important natural and cultural resources related to the purpose of the park. Development costs and annual recurring costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at 7.5 million and $1.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protection, preservation, and interpretation of the historic camps and other sites would be ensured and enhanced. The importance of the island in military history would be emphasized. Increased visitation would increase recreational expenditures in local communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of the cultural landscape could result in short- and long-term disturbances to soil and vegetation and alteration of topography in some areas. Surface water quality on the island property could be affected by landscape rehabilitation and management and increased visitor use.
JF  - EPA number: 080014, 289 pages and maps, January 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Islands
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Trails
KW  - Washington
KW  - San Juan Island National Historical Park
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381619?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, PUERTO RICO. [Part 4 of 5]
T2  - SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, PUERTO RICO.
AN  - 36381011; 13116-080014_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for San Juan Island National Historical Park in Puerto Rico is proposed. The island is the second largest island of the San Juan archipelago, which is situated in northwestern Washington between the southern tip of Vancouver Island, British Columbia and the United States mainland. The historical park, which was established by Congress in 1966, commemorates and preserves the 1,223-acre American Camp and the 1,752-acre English Camp. The boundary of the English Camp includes an offshore island known as Guss Island. The camps were connected to activities in the period between 1852 and 1871 on the island in connection with the final settlement of the Oregon Territory boundary dispute between the British and American governments. The marine ecosystems surrounding these units and their six miles of publicly accessible shoreline are renowned for their scenery. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) The general concept for Alternative B would result in increased visitor use opportunities and outreach a t both English Camp and American Camp and in the town of Friday Harbor through additional visitor facilities, recreational opportunities, programs, and services, Interpretation would be enhanced for both cultural and natural interpretive themes through more extensive facilities and programs. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would broaden the scope of resource management and interpretation programs to emphasize the connections and interrelationships between the park's natural and cultural resources. New facilities, trails, and programs would provide opportunities for visitors to understand the importance of the park's natural resources in defining the cultural landscapes and influencing the settlement and historic events of San Juan Island. At English Camp, the Crook House would be retained, stabilized, and used as an exterior exhibit with interpretive signs and displays that tell the story of the Crook family. The educational camp wuold be relocated within English Camp along the administrative road and set back into the woods. The hospital would be rehabilitated and opened to the public. The 1979 double-wide trailer that serves as the temporary visitor center at American Camp would be removed and replaced with a permanent visitor center at the existing site, allowing for improved exhibits and more staff space. A collections study room for natural and cultural resource items, including a portion of military-era collections would be relocated to the park. The collections study room would be located at the park headquarters or at the permanent visitor center and would be easily accessible to park staff. The pre-history collections would be retained at the University of Washington's Burke Museum in Seattle. The existing road to the resource off Pickett's Lane would be removed and converted to a trail. In the officers' quarters duplex, half would be rehabilitated for use as an interpretive exhibit that shows a typical officers' quarters and the other half would be available as a study house. The cultural landscapes would be enhanced to aid visitor understanding and interpretation through a variety of techniques. The prairie would be restored to native plant species. Historic buildings from the encampment period would be repatriated to their original locations. Off-island interpretation would be enhanced through partnerships. The park would propose boundary adjustments at both camps to include important natural and cultural resources related to the purpose of the park. Development costs and annual recurring costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at 7.5 million and $1.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protection, preservation, and interpretation of the historic camps and other sites would be ensured and enhanced. The importance of the island in military history would be emphasized. Increased visitation would increase recreational expenditures in local communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of the cultural landscape could result in short- and long-term disturbances to soil and vegetation and alteration of topography in some areas. Surface water quality on the island property could be affected by landscape rehabilitation and management and increased visitor use.
JF  - EPA number: 080014, 289 pages and maps, January 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Islands
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Trails
KW  - Washington
KW  - San Juan Island National Historical Park
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381011?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36408526; 13110
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Governors Island National Monument in New York Harbor, New York is proposed. For over 200 years, Governors Island has played a vital role in the defense and development of the city. Its location in New York Harbor, a few hundred yards from the southern tip of Manhattan and Brooklyn, has influenced its use and role throughout history. The island's military history includes involvements in from the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. The national monument designation was established to preserve and protect Castle Williams and Fort Jay and to interpret then and their role in the defense of New York Harbor and the nation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would develop the monument as a Harbor Center, a hub of activities and a jumping off point for visitors wanting t o explore New York Harbor. Working with other harbor-related organizations (national parks and local, regional, and international civic, educational, and research organizations) the National Park Service would develop a range of activities in Fort Jay and Castle Williams that interpret the key themes of the island and greater harbor. The park would collaborate and coordinate on harbor-related programs on and off the island that would help visitors understand the forts' military significance, the island's strategic location, and the ongoing ecological conservation efforts for the harbor and the re-visioning and redevelopment of the waterfront. The monument would become a primary stop on harbor ferry tours, Programs could include specialized boat tours of the harbor, educational programs that explore the harbor's history and ecology. A variety of programs, exhibits, and special events would be available in both forts. These activities would use the harbor to describe the island's history and significance, and the interplay over time between the harbor and the city's health and economy. Fort Jay could house harbor research, offices, and temporary lodging for fellowship and residency programs and provide a setting for harbor-related seminars and workshops. Castle Williams would be the island's main exhibition and interpretive center, showcasing multimedia programs and interactive exhibits that explore local, national, and global topics associated with the island and the harbor. One-time capital investment and life cycle costs are estimated at $50 million to $60 million and 107 million to $128 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to protecting and preserving Castle Williams and Fort Jay, the preferred management scheme would provide an opportunity to educate the public about the evolution of coastal defense and military communities as well as the harbor's rich history and ecology. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some disturbance to archaeological sites could occur during construction activities, as would runoff, carrying pollutants into the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Presidential Proclamations 7402 and 7647 and Public Law 105-33.
JF  - EPA number: 080008, 325 pages, January 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-02
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Harbors
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Islands
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Governors Island National Monument
KW  - New York
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7402, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7647, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 105-33, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36408526?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, New York New York; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. [Part 3 of 6]
T2  - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36390367; 13110-080008_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Governors Island National Monument in New York Harbor, New York is proposed. For over 200 years, Governors Island has played a vital role in the defense and development of the city. Its location in New York Harbor, a few hundred yards from the southern tip of Manhattan and Brooklyn, has influenced its use and role throughout history. The island's military history includes involvements in from the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. The national monument designation was established to preserve and protect Castle Williams and Fort Jay and to interpret then and their role in the defense of New York Harbor and the nation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would develop the monument as a Harbor Center, a hub of activities and a jumping off point for visitors wanting t o explore New York Harbor. Working with other harbor-related organizations (national parks and local, regional, and international civic, educational, and research organizations) the National Park Service would develop a range of activities in Fort Jay and Castle Williams that interpret the key themes of the island and greater harbor. The park would collaborate and coordinate on harbor-related programs on and off the island that would help visitors understand the forts' military significance, the island's strategic location, and the ongoing ecological conservation efforts for the harbor and the re-visioning and redevelopment of the waterfront. The monument would become a primary stop on harbor ferry tours, Programs could include specialized boat tours of the harbor, educational programs that explore the harbor's history and ecology. A variety of programs, exhibits, and special events would be available in both forts. These activities would use the harbor to describe the island's history and significance, and the interplay over time between the harbor and the city's health and economy. Fort Jay could house harbor research, offices, and temporary lodging for fellowship and residency programs and provide a setting for harbor-related seminars and workshops. Castle Williams would be the island's main exhibition and interpretive center, showcasing multimedia programs and interactive exhibits that explore local, national, and global topics associated with the island and the harbor. One-time capital investment and life cycle costs are estimated at $50 million to $60 million and 107 million to $128 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to protecting and preserving Castle Williams and Fort Jay, the preferred management scheme would provide an opportunity to educate the public about the evolution of coastal defense and military communities as well as the harbor's rich history and ecology. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some disturbance to archaeological sites could occur during construction activities, as would runoff, carrying pollutants into the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Presidential Proclamations 7402 and 7647 and Public Law 105-33.
JF  - EPA number: 080008, 325 pages, January 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-02
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Harbors
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Islands
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Governors Island National Monument
KW  - New York
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7402, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7647, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 105-33, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390367?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, New York New York; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. [Part 5 of 6]
T2  - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36380887; 13110-080008_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Governors Island National Monument in New York Harbor, New York is proposed. For over 200 years, Governors Island has played a vital role in the defense and development of the city. Its location in New York Harbor, a few hundred yards from the southern tip of Manhattan and Brooklyn, has influenced its use and role throughout history. The island's military history includes involvements in from the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. The national monument designation was established to preserve and protect Castle Williams and Fort Jay and to interpret then and their role in the defense of New York Harbor and the nation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would develop the monument as a Harbor Center, a hub of activities and a jumping off point for visitors wanting t o explore New York Harbor. Working with other harbor-related organizations (national parks and local, regional, and international civic, educational, and research organizations) the National Park Service would develop a range of activities in Fort Jay and Castle Williams that interpret the key themes of the island and greater harbor. The park would collaborate and coordinate on harbor-related programs on and off the island that would help visitors understand the forts' military significance, the island's strategic location, and the ongoing ecological conservation efforts for the harbor and the re-visioning and redevelopment of the waterfront. The monument would become a primary stop on harbor ferry tours, Programs could include specialized boat tours of the harbor, educational programs that explore the harbor's history and ecology. A variety of programs, exhibits, and special events would be available in both forts. These activities would use the harbor to describe the island's history and significance, and the interplay over time between the harbor and the city's health and economy. Fort Jay could house harbor research, offices, and temporary lodging for fellowship and residency programs and provide a setting for harbor-related seminars and workshops. Castle Williams would be the island's main exhibition and interpretive center, showcasing multimedia programs and interactive exhibits that explore local, national, and global topics associated with the island and the harbor. One-time capital investment and life cycle costs are estimated at $50 million to $60 million and 107 million to $128 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to protecting and preserving Castle Williams and Fort Jay, the preferred management scheme would provide an opportunity to educate the public about the evolution of coastal defense and military communities as well as the harbor's rich history and ecology. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some disturbance to archaeological sites could occur during construction activities, as would runoff, carrying pollutants into the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Presidential Proclamations 7402 and 7647 and Public Law 105-33.
JF  - EPA number: 080008, 325 pages, January 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-02
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Harbors
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Islands
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Governors Island National Monument
KW  - New York
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7402, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7647, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 105-33, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380887?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, New York New York; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 6]
T2  - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36380719; 13110-080008_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Governors Island National Monument in New York Harbor, New York is proposed. For over 200 years, Governors Island has played a vital role in the defense and development of the city. Its location in New York Harbor, a few hundred yards from the southern tip of Manhattan and Brooklyn, has influenced its use and role throughout history. The island's military history includes involvements in from the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. The national monument designation was established to preserve and protect Castle Williams and Fort Jay and to interpret then and their role in the defense of New York Harbor and the nation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would develop the monument as a Harbor Center, a hub of activities and a jumping off point for visitors wanting t o explore New York Harbor. Working with other harbor-related organizations (national parks and local, regional, and international civic, educational, and research organizations) the National Park Service would develop a range of activities in Fort Jay and Castle Williams that interpret the key themes of the island and greater harbor. The park would collaborate and coordinate on harbor-related programs on and off the island that would help visitors understand the forts' military significance, the island's strategic location, and the ongoing ecological conservation efforts for the harbor and the re-visioning and redevelopment of the waterfront. The monument would become a primary stop on harbor ferry tours, Programs could include specialized boat tours of the harbor, educational programs that explore the harbor's history and ecology. A variety of programs, exhibits, and special events would be available in both forts. These activities would use the harbor to describe the island's history and significance, and the interplay over time between the harbor and the city's health and economy. Fort Jay could house harbor research, offices, and temporary lodging for fellowship and residency programs and provide a setting for harbor-related seminars and workshops. Castle Williams would be the island's main exhibition and interpretive center, showcasing multimedia programs and interactive exhibits that explore local, national, and global topics associated with the island and the harbor. One-time capital investment and life cycle costs are estimated at $50 million to $60 million and 107 million to $128 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to protecting and preserving Castle Williams and Fort Jay, the preferred management scheme would provide an opportunity to educate the public about the evolution of coastal defense and military communities as well as the harbor's rich history and ecology. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some disturbance to archaeological sites could occur during construction activities, as would runoff, carrying pollutants into the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Presidential Proclamations 7402 and 7647 and Public Law 105-33.
JF  - EPA number: 080008, 325 pages, January 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-02
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Harbors
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Islands
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Governors Island National Monument
KW  - New York
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7402, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7647, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 105-33, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380719?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, New York New York; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. [Part 4 of 6]
T2  - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36380401; 13110-080008_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Governors Island National Monument in New York Harbor, New York is proposed. For over 200 years, Governors Island has played a vital role in the defense and development of the city. Its location in New York Harbor, a few hundred yards from the southern tip of Manhattan and Brooklyn, has influenced its use and role throughout history. The island's military history includes involvements in from the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. The national monument designation was established to preserve and protect Castle Williams and Fort Jay and to interpret then and their role in the defense of New York Harbor and the nation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would develop the monument as a Harbor Center, a hub of activities and a jumping off point for visitors wanting t o explore New York Harbor. Working with other harbor-related organizations (national parks and local, regional, and international civic, educational, and research organizations) the National Park Service would develop a range of activities in Fort Jay and Castle Williams that interpret the key themes of the island and greater harbor. The park would collaborate and coordinate on harbor-related programs on and off the island that would help visitors understand the forts' military significance, the island's strategic location, and the ongoing ecological conservation efforts for the harbor and the re-visioning and redevelopment of the waterfront. The monument would become a primary stop on harbor ferry tours, Programs could include specialized boat tours of the harbor, educational programs that explore the harbor's history and ecology. A variety of programs, exhibits, and special events would be available in both forts. These activities would use the harbor to describe the island's history and significance, and the interplay over time between the harbor and the city's health and economy. Fort Jay could house harbor research, offices, and temporary lodging for fellowship and residency programs and provide a setting for harbor-related seminars and workshops. Castle Williams would be the island's main exhibition and interpretive center, showcasing multimedia programs and interactive exhibits that explore local, national, and global topics associated with the island and the harbor. One-time capital investment and life cycle costs are estimated at $50 million to $60 million and 107 million to $128 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to protecting and preserving Castle Williams and Fort Jay, the preferred management scheme would provide an opportunity to educate the public about the evolution of coastal defense and military communities as well as the harbor's rich history and ecology. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some disturbance to archaeological sites could occur during construction activities, as would runoff, carrying pollutants into the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Presidential Proclamations 7402 and 7647 and Public Law 105-33.
JF  - EPA number: 080008, 325 pages, January 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-02
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Harbors
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Islands
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Governors Island National Monument
KW  - New York
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7402, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7647, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 105-33, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380401?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, New York New York; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. [Part 6 of 6]
T2  - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36374377; 13110-080008_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Governors Island National Monument in New York Harbor, New York is proposed. For over 200 years, Governors Island has played a vital role in the defense and development of the city. Its location in New York Harbor, a few hundred yards from the southern tip of Manhattan and Brooklyn, has influenced its use and role throughout history. The island's military history includes involvements in from the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. The national monument designation was established to preserve and protect Castle Williams and Fort Jay and to interpret then and their role in the defense of New York Harbor and the nation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would develop the monument as a Harbor Center, a hub of activities and a jumping off point for visitors wanting t o explore New York Harbor. Working with other harbor-related organizations (national parks and local, regional, and international civic, educational, and research organizations) the National Park Service would develop a range of activities in Fort Jay and Castle Williams that interpret the key themes of the island and greater harbor. The park would collaborate and coordinate on harbor-related programs on and off the island that would help visitors understand the forts' military significance, the island's strategic location, and the ongoing ecological conservation efforts for the harbor and the re-visioning and redevelopment of the waterfront. The monument would become a primary stop on harbor ferry tours, Programs could include specialized boat tours of the harbor, educational programs that explore the harbor's history and ecology. A variety of programs, exhibits, and special events would be available in both forts. These activities would use the harbor to describe the island's history and significance, and the interplay over time between the harbor and the city's health and economy. Fort Jay could house harbor research, offices, and temporary lodging for fellowship and residency programs and provide a setting for harbor-related seminars and workshops. Castle Williams would be the island's main exhibition and interpretive center, showcasing multimedia programs and interactive exhibits that explore local, national, and global topics associated with the island and the harbor. One-time capital investment and life cycle costs are estimated at $50 million to $60 million and 107 million to $128 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to protecting and preserving Castle Williams and Fort Jay, the preferred management scheme would provide an opportunity to educate the public about the evolution of coastal defense and military communities as well as the harbor's rich history and ecology. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some disturbance to archaeological sites could occur during construction activities, as would runoff, carrying pollutants into the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Presidential Proclamations 7402 and 7647 and Public Law 105-33.
JF  - EPA number: 080008, 325 pages, January 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-02
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Harbors
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Islands
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Governors Island National Monument
KW  - New York
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7402, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7647, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 105-33, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374377?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, New York New York; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. [Part 2 of 6]
T2  - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36374326; 13110-080008_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Governors Island National Monument in New York Harbor, New York is proposed. For over 200 years, Governors Island has played a vital role in the defense and development of the city. Its location in New York Harbor, a few hundred yards from the southern tip of Manhattan and Brooklyn, has influenced its use and role throughout history. The island's military history includes involvements in from the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. The national monument designation was established to preserve and protect Castle Williams and Fort Jay and to interpret then and their role in the defense of New York Harbor and the nation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would develop the monument as a Harbor Center, a hub of activities and a jumping off point for visitors wanting t o explore New York Harbor. Working with other harbor-related organizations (national parks and local, regional, and international civic, educational, and research organizations) the National Park Service would develop a range of activities in Fort Jay and Castle Williams that interpret the key themes of the island and greater harbor. The park would collaborate and coordinate on harbor-related programs on and off the island that would help visitors understand the forts' military significance, the island's strategic location, and the ongoing ecological conservation efforts for the harbor and the re-visioning and redevelopment of the waterfront. The monument would become a primary stop on harbor ferry tours, Programs could include specialized boat tours of the harbor, educational programs that explore the harbor's history and ecology. A variety of programs, exhibits, and special events would be available in both forts. These activities would use the harbor to describe the island's history and significance, and the interplay over time between the harbor and the city's health and economy. Fort Jay could house harbor research, offices, and temporary lodging for fellowship and residency programs and provide a setting for harbor-related seminars and workshops. Castle Williams would be the island's main exhibition and interpretive center, showcasing multimedia programs and interactive exhibits that explore local, national, and global topics associated with the island and the harbor. One-time capital investment and life cycle costs are estimated at $50 million to $60 million and 107 million to $128 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to protecting and preserving Castle Williams and Fort Jay, the preferred management scheme would provide an opportunity to educate the public about the evolution of coastal defense and military communities as well as the harbor's rich history and ecology. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some disturbance to archaeological sites could occur during construction activities, as would runoff, carrying pollutants into the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Presidential Proclamations 7402 and 7647 and Public Law 105-33.
JF  - EPA number: 080008, 325 pages, January 8, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-02
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Harbors
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Islands
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Governors Island National Monument
KW  - New York
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7402, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7647, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 105-33, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374326?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, New York New York; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 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.
AN  - 36409388; 13093
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36409388?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080002/080002_0060.txt of 66]
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  - 36390737; 13093-080002_0060
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080002/080002_0060.txt
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390737?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 66 of 66]
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  - 36390605; 13093-080002_0066
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 66
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390605?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 21 of 66]
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  - 36390508; 13093-080002_0021
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390508?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 6 of 66]
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  - 36390305; 13093-080002_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390305?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 17 of 66]
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  - 36390010; 13093-080002_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390010?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 39 of 66]
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  - 36389842; 13093-080002_0039
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 39
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389842?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080002/080002_0050.txt of 66]
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  - 36389664; 13093-080002_0050
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080002/080002_0050.txt
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389664?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 57 of 66]
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  - 36389531; 13093-080002_0057
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 57
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389531?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 46 of 66]
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  - 36389385; 13093-080002_0046
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 46
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389385?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080002/080002_0020.txt of 66]
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  - 36389191; 13093-080002_0020
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080002/080002_0020.txt
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389191?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 48 of 66]
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  - 36389130; 13093-080002_0048
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 48
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389130?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 24 of 66]
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  - 36389036; 13093-080002_0024
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389036?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 11 of 66]
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  - 36388829; 13093-080002_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388829?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 23 of 66]
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  - 36388799; 13093-080002_0023
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388799?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 4 of 66]
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  - 36388792; 13093-080002_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388792?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 33 of 66]
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  - 36388446; 13093-080002_0033
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 33
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388446?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 61 of 66]
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  - 36382016; 13093-080002_0061
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 61
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382016?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 64 of 66]
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  - 36381437; 13093-080002_0064
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 64
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381437?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 38 of 66]
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  - 36381364; 13093-080002_0038
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 38
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381364?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 65 of 66]
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  - 36381322; 13093-080002_0065
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 65
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381322?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 53 of 66]
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  - 36381179; 13093-080002_0053
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 53
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381179?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 63 of 66]
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  - 36381176; 13093-080002_0063
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 63
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381176?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 51 of 66]
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  - 36380995; 13093-080002_0051
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 51
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380995?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 62 of 66]
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  - 36380879; 13093-080002_0062
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 62
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380879?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 42 of 66]
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  - 36380737; 13093-080002_0042
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 42
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380737?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 37 of 66]
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  - 36380703; 13093-080002_0037
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 37
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380703?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 25 of 66]
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  - 36380576; 13093-080002_0025
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380576?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 22 of 66]
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  - 36380509; 13093-080002_0022
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380509?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 52 of 66]
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  - 36380464; 13093-080002_0052
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 52
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380464?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 9 of 66]
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  - 36380414; 13093-080002_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380414?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080002/080002_0030.txt of 66]
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  - 36380298; 13093-080002_0030
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080002/080002_0030.txt
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380298?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 19 of 66]
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  - 36380137; 13093-080002_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380137?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 54 of 66]
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  - 36380085; 13093-080002_0054
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 54
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380085?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 47 of 66]
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  - 36380043; 13093-080002_0047
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 47
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380043?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 13 of 66]
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  - 36379968; 13093-080002_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379968?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 44 of 66]
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  - 36379877; 13093-080002_0044
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 44
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379877?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 41 of 66]
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  - 36379874; 13093-080002_0041
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 41
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379874?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080002/080002_0010.txt of 66]
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  - 36379826; 13093-080002_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080002/080002_0010.txt
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379826?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 55 of 66]
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  - 36379750; 13093-080002_0055
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 55
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379750?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 5 of 66]
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  - 36379660; 13093-080002_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379660?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 1 of 66]
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  - 36379626; 13093-080002_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379626?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 28 of 66]
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  - 36379565; 13093-080002_0028
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 28
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379565?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 31 of 66]
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  - 36379436; 13093-080002_0031
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 31
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379436?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 32 of 66]
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  - 36379410; 13093-080002_0032
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 32
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379410?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 35 of 66]
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  - 36379408; 13093-080002_0035
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 35
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379408?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 29 of 66]
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  - 36379403; 13093-080002_0029
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 29
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379403?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 45 of 66]
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  - 36379365; 13093-080002_0045
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 45
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379365?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 18 of 66]
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  - 36379363; 13093-080002_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379363?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 26 of 66]
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  - 36379310; 13093-080002_0026
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379310?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 8 of 66]
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  - 36379260; 13093-080002_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379260?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 43 of 66]
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  - 36379185; 13093-080002_0043
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 43
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379185?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 7 of 66]
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  - 36379103; 13093-080002_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379103?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 16 of 66]
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  - 36379097; 13093-080002_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379097?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 56 of 66]
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  - 36379064; 13093-080002_0056
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 56
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379064?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 27 of 66]
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  - 36379063; 13093-080002_0027
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 27
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379063?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 3 of 66]
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  - 36378897; 13093-080002_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378897?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 49 of 66]
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  - 36378852; 13093-080002_0049
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 49
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378852?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080002/080002_0040.txt of 66]
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  - 36378714; 13093-080002_0040
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080002/080002_0040.txt
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378714?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 36 of 66]
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  - 36378579; 13093-080002_0036
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 36
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378579?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 12 of 66]
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  - 36378569; 13093-080002_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378569?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 34 of 66]
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  - 36378438; 13093-080002_0034
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 34
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378438?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 15 of 66]
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  - 36378291; 13093-080002_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378291?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 14 of 66]
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  - 36378173; 13093-080002_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378173?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 59 of 66]
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  - 36373949; 13093-080002_0059
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 59
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373949?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 58 of 66]
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  - 36373822; 13093-080002_0058
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 58
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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373822?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 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. [Part 2 of 66]
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  - 36373660; 13093-080002_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land for the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SSDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. The proposed transmission line is being evaluated along with a number of alternative alignment routes and new electrical generation options. Seven action alternatives, including the proposal, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred generation alternative would include one baseload and four peaking gas-fired power plants providing 700 megawatts (MW) of capacity as well as 300 MW of renewable resource generation capacity, including solar, wind, and biomass/biogas technologies. The proposed transmission line route would include 141 miles of overhead line and nine miles of underground line. The project would include one new substation, four substation upgrades, and reconductor work on a segment of existing line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line 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 nearly 500 acres of 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 159 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. Approximately 50 acres of state-designated wilderness would be de-designated. Transmission towers would mar visual aesthetics along the entire powerline route. The line would pass through areas characterized by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080002, Draft EIS--769 pages and maps, January 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  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Parks
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  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373660?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-03&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.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 3, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Line, grid, and vector data, plot files, and descriptive project report for the airborne geophysical survey of part of the western Fortymile mining district, East-Central Alaska
AN  - 921714600; 2012-021342
JF  - Geophysical Report - Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys
AU  - Burns, L E
Y1  - 2008
PY  - 2008
DA  - 2008
EP  - 1 disc
PB  - Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Fairbanks, AK
KW  - Type: geophysical survey maps
KW  - United States
KW  - geophysical surveys
KW  - total-field methods
KW  - geophysical methods
KW  - magnetic methods
KW  - resistivity
KW  - magnetic field
KW  - maps
KW  - East-Central Alaska
KW  - Fortymile mining district
KW  - surveys
KW  - geophysical survey maps
KW  - Alaska
KW  - airborne methods
KW  - 20:Applied geophysics
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/921714600?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Burns%2C+L+E&rft.aulast=Burns&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2008-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Line%2C+grid%2C+and+vector+data%2C+plot+files%2C+and+descriptive+project+report+for+the+airborne+geophysical+survey+of+part+of+the+western+Fortymile+mining+district%2C+East-Central+Alaska&rft.title=Line%2C+grid%2C+and+vector+data%2C+plot+files%2C+and+descriptive+project+report+for+the+airborne+geophysical+survey+of+part+of+the+western+Fortymile+mining+district%2C+East-Central+Alaska&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/pubs?reqtype=citation&ID=15961 http://www.dggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=series&abbrevID=200
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2012-01-01
N1  - PubXState - AK
N1  - SuppNotes - Accesed on July 15, 2010
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
N1  - CODEN - #06702
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - airborne methods; Alaska; East-Central Alaska; Fortymile mining district; geophysical methods; geophysical survey maps; geophysical surveys; magnetic field; magnetic methods; maps; resistivity; surveys; total-field methods; United States
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Fort Defiance area; parts of Apache and Navajo Counties, Arizona; and McKinley and San Juan Counties, New Mexico
AN  - 1529792067; 2014-033488
JF  - Soil survey of Fort Defiance area; parts of Apache and Navajo Counties, Arizona; and McKinley and San Juan Counties, New Mexico
Y1  - 2008
PY  - 2008
DA  - 2008
SP  - 425
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - northeastern Arizona
KW  - Colorado Plateau
KW  - Apache County Arizona
KW  - San Juan County New Mexico
KW  - Navajo Indian Reservation
KW  - Navajo County Arizona
KW  - northwestern New Mexico
KW  - mapping
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - McKinley County New Mexico
KW  - Fort Defiance Arizona
KW  - Arizona
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1529792067?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Fort+Defiance+area%3B+parts+of+Apache+and+Navajo+Counties%2C+Arizona%3B+and+McKinley+and+San+Juan+Counties%2C+New+Mexico&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Fort+Defiance+area%3B+parts+of+Apache+and+Navajo+Counties%2C+Arizona%3B+and+McKinley+and+San+Juan+Counties%2C+New+Mexico&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2014-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 7
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables, sketch map
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; Prepared in cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service; and the Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GREAT FALLS PARK, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
AN  - 36345489; 13088
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a comprehensive general management plan for Great Falls Park in Fairfax County, Virginia is proposed. The plan would specify resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved at the park over the next 10 to 15 years. The 800-acre park, which is part of the George Washington Memorial parkway located in northern Virginia, is a distinctive place within the metropolitan area of the District of Columbia. The area includes dramatic vistas of the Potomac River cascading over 76 feet of jagged rocks and through a series of cataracts and surging through the Mather Gorge. The area also includes preserved ruins of the Patowmack Canal, a designated National Historic Landmark that is a physical reminder of George Washington's efforts to make the river navigable. Adjacent to the canal ruins, the town of Matildaville, not an abandoned settlement, is situated within the park. The town was built to support trade along the canal. The park lies at the northern end of the 15-mile Potomac River Gorge, one of the country's most ecologically diverse areas, serving as a influence of more than 200 rare plant species and biological communities. Each year, nearly 500,000 visitors enjoy activities within the park. The preferred alternative would provide for rehabilitation of the visitor center to improve exhibits and establish an educational component that would focus on resource interrelation as well as providing information on safe and responsible use of park resources; a trail management plan that would inventory all formal and social trails, including their conditions, needed improvements, and whether to maintain or eliminate each trail; the integration of adjacent park resources into the park at potential access points, including Difficult Run, Riverbend Road, Riverbend Park, and along Old Dominion Drive; development and implementation of a rock climbing management plan; protection of known buried ruins and other potential sites in situ to ensure their continued preservation; provision of technical assistance to neighbors on water resource management, including stormwater management techniques aimed to reduce runoff from impervious surfaces and improve water quality; provision of traffic and parking message boards at satellite locations along access routes, including Georgetown Pike; provision of radio announcements to inform visitors about traffic conditions at the entrance station; and two new administration and operations facilities to replace the existing maintenance facility and the park personnel trailer, both of which would be demolished. In addition to the proposed alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would protect and enhance park resources, while providing a more enjoyable, educative interpretation to historians and the public. Current land uses in the park would be supported indefinitely. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Visitation increases could result in some additional degradation of park resources, though expected increases in visitation under the preferred alternative are expected to be minimal. Construction and maintenance of faculties would disturb vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, but these disturbances would be temporary and minimized by mitigation efforts. A reduction in climbing and trail use could affect visitor recreational opportunities. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0615D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 070558, 256 pages, December 28, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Highways
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Waterways
KW  - Great Falls Park
KW  - Potomac River
KW  - Virginia
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36345489?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-12-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREAT+FALLS+PARK%2C+FAIRFAX+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=GREAT+FALLS+PARK%2C+FAIRFAX+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, McLean, Virginia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 28, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GREATER DEADMAN BENCH OIL AND GAS PRODUCING REGION, QUESTAR EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION COMPANY PROPOSAL, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 36345405; 13081
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of oil and gas resources within the 98,785-acre Greater Deadman Bench Oil and Gas Producing Region (GDBR) area of Uintah County, Utah is proposed by the Questar Exploration and Production Company (QEP). The GDBR, which lies within the Brook Cliffs Resource Area 15 miles south of Vernal in townships T6S to T8S, R21E to R25E. A portion of the GDBR lies within the Diamond Mountain Resource Area. The GDBR currently includes 278 existing oil and water-injection wells, 300 gas wells, and 57 miles of primary road and 314 miles of secondary road. QEP holds valid federal, state, and private oil and gas leases in the GDBR, encompassing 79 percent of the leases in the area. The proposed action would include the development of 1,010 natural gas wells to be drilled into multiple formations, 219 oil/water-injection wells to be drilled into the Green River formation, 170 miles of access road, 235 miles of pipeline, 31 miles of power transmission line, 15 compressor stations, and 22 central tank facilities. Each well pad would be a level 300 feet by 350 feet occupying approximately 2.41 acres. Drilling and completion operations would take from four to 90 days, depending on the depth of drilling, expected to range from 2,000 to 16,000 feet. Following drilling and initial completion operations, a portion of each pad, plus the reserve pit, would be reclaimed and returned to natural conditions. The average reclaimed well pad would displace 1.65 acres and the average 1,000-foot road would displace 0.69 acres for a total of 2.34 acres per well development. In some cases, a "twin" well would be drilled on a single pad to different formations or directional drilling would be used to access 20-acre spacing formations. As a result only 891 new pads and associated 1,000-foot access roads would be developed. Construction would begin after the issuance of a record of decision, approval of individual drilling permits, and approval of rights-of-way grants. Construction would continue for 10 years and production would be expected to continue for 40 years. The location of the wells and associated ancillary facilities proposed would represent a maximum level of development within the GBDR. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would involve denial of development of federal leases, but allow the development of federal leases that have been approved under the application for permit to drill process. Under either Alternative, development of state and private leases as well as the associated roads and pipelines would continue within federally administered lands to provide for access to state and private leases. POSITIVE IMPACTS: New lease development would result in a project life production of 615.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas and 9.52 million barrels of crude oil as compared to 106.8 billion cubic feet of gas and 1.44 million barrels of oil under current lease development. Leasing activities would employ local and regional workers throughout the lease development and production periods; 330 workers would be employed during the 10-year development period, resulting in an annual payroll of $10.7 million. Royalties to the state would amount to $140.1 million over the 40-year life of the project, while the county would receive $26.2 million. Severance tax to the Utah general fund would amount to $127 million over the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full lease development would result in the disturbance of 4,561 acres of soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including winter range for mule deer and raptor guideline buffers. Sediment loading to the White and Green rivers would not exceed 2,375 tons per year, an increase of less than 0.03 percent. A total of 426 well pads would be placed in area characterized by highly erodible soils, and 17 wells could be located within habitat for milkvetch, prairie dog, ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, sage grouse, all of which are federally protected species. Oil spills would present a slight risk of groundwater contamination. Based on past research, it has been determined that 154 to 462 cultural resource sites could occur in the GDBR, 40 percent of which could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and seven to s2 new sites could be uncovered during earth-moving activities. Fossil-bearing formations could lie within the GDBR. Livestock forage would continue to be lost due to lease developments; 10 allotments would lose a total of 347 animal unit months of forage. Dust generated during construction and particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide emissions during production operations would be significant but would not exceed federal ambient air quality standards. Lease development structures and roads would mar visual aesthetics and other recreational values in the area, and recreationists would be exposed to noise from construction and operations activities. 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), 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 06-0198D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 070551, 511 pages and maps, December 27, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-080-2003-0369V
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Brook Cliffs Resource Area
KW  - Diamond Mountain Resource Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36345405?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-12-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+DEADMAN+BENCH+OIL+AND+GAS+PRODUCING+REGION%2C+QUESTAR+EXPLORATION+AND+PRODUCTION+COMPANY+PROPOSAL%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GREATER+DEADMAN+BENCH+OIL+AND+GAS+PRODUCING+REGION%2C+QUESTAR+EXPLORATION+AND+PRODUCTION+COMPANY+PROPOSAL%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 27, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EOG RESOURCES INC. CHAPITA WELLS-STAGECOACH AREA NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 36344226; 13079
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of natural gas resources in the Chapita Wells-Stagecoach Area (CWSA) of Unitah County, Utah is proposed by EOG Resources, Inc. The 31,872-acre CWSA lies in an existing gas-producing region in lands owned by the federal government, the state, the Northern Ute Indian Tribe, and private parties. The CWSA contains the Capita Wells Unit and the Stagecoach Unit in addition to non-unitized lands. As of March 1, 2004, the CWSA contained 325 gas-producing wells, approximately 121 miles of road, and 115 miles of pipeline. An additional 100 wells, 12 miles of access road, and 18.5 miles of pipeline, approved in 1999, remain to be drilled and/or constructed in the project area. Fifty-five of these previously approved wells would be drilled at new locations and 45 are expected to be twins (i.e., drilled at existing well locations). There are currently no oil wells or produced water disposal wells in the CWSA. EOG proposes to drill up to 627 new gas wells to the Green River, Wasatch, Mesaverde, Mancos "B", and, possibly, other formations. Of the planned wells, 473 would be drilled at new locations and 154 would be twins, representing 25 percent of the total new wells that would be drilled. The final location of well pads, roads, and pipelines would be determined through future site-specific analyses; this EIS is not a decision document. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Gas resource development would help provide for the increasing demand for natural gas throughout the nation and reduce the country's dependence on foreign sources of energy. The completion of the 627 wells and ancillary facilities over a two-year period would create $11.3 million in employment income. The operational phase of the project would generate $17.3 million over the 40-year project life. Total production revenues over the project life would amount to $2.4 billion. In addition, the project would generate $12,245 per well in annual federal mine royalties, for a total of $6.7 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance and erosion, affecting vegetation and soil over 1,735 acres, would increase sedimentation and turbidity in surface water flows. Soil losses of 4,015 tons per year would be expected. Up to 103 acre-feet per year could be lost from the Green and White rivers due to project-related water withdrawal, possibly degrading natural values provided by the associated floodplains. Developments would affect 714 acres of critical, year-long antelope habitat and 71 acres of mule deer habitat. Approximately 154 animal unit months would be lost over the long-term. Paleontological sites could be disturbed. 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 06-0029D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 070549, 322 pages, December 27, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FES 07-50
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344226?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-12-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EOG+RESOURCES+INC.+CHAPITA+WELLS-STAGECOACH+AREA+NATURAL+GAS+DEVELOPMENT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=EOG+RESOURCES+INC.+CHAPITA+WELLS-STAGECOACH+AREA+NATURAL+GAS+DEVELOPMENT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 27, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RAWLINS RESOURCE MANGEMENT PLAN, ALBANY, LARAMIE, AND SWEETWATER COUNTIES, SOUTH-CENTRAL AND SOUTHWESTERN WYOMING.
AN  - 36342874; 13083
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of a general land and resource management plan for the Rawlins Resource Management Area, Albany, Laramie, and Sweetwater counties, south-central and southwestern Wyoming is proposed. The planning area comprises approximately 11.2 million acres. Within the area, the Bureau of Land Management administers approximately 3.4 million acres of public land surface and mineral estate, 100,000 acres of public land surface and land surface where the mineral estate is held privately, and 1.2 million acres of federal mineral estate where the surface is privately owned or owned by the state of Wyoming. The plan would focus primarily on eight resource management issues, specifically, development of energy resources and minerals, special management designations, resource accessibility, the wildland-urban interface, special status species, water quality, vegetation management, and recreational, cultural, and paleontological resources. Four alternative, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize development of resources. Alternative would emphasize the protection of resources. Refined Alternative 4, a combination of the other alternatives, is the preferred alternative, with a focus on conservation of resources. The preferred alternative would provide for opportunities to use and development resources within the planning area, with a focus on conservation of resources. The guidance that would emphasize neither resource use nor resource protection. Alternatives are compared on the basis of management goals and management actions with respect to air quality, cultural resources, fire and fuels management, forestry, land and realty, livestock grazing, minerals, off-highway vehicle use, paleontological resources, recreational resources, special management areas, transportation and access management, vegetation resources, water quality, watersheds, soils, wild horse management, and wildlife and fish habitat. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would a provide for access to minerals, other energy resources, rangeland resources, and recreational resources, while protecting cultural and historic resources, paleontological resources, natural resources, particularly wetlands, riparian habitat, and other habitat types. Development of mineral resources, recreational resources would expand employment rolls dramatically in the planning area, maintain jobs, and provide revenues for local governments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management practices and the development of natural and recreational resources, particularly mineral resources and energy resources would result in impacts to air and water quality, cultural resources, fire and fuels hazards, forested land, land tenure, livestock grazing, minerals, geology, typography, erosion, paleontological resources, recreation resources, special management areas, including wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers, transportation and access, vegetation and the associated wildlife and fish habitat, visual aesthetics, watershed quality and soils, wild horse populations, 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 05-0332D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 070553, Volume Final EIS (Volume 1-1)--589 pages, Final EIS (Volume 1-2)--430 pages, Resource Management Plan (Volume 2-1)--430 pages Resource Management Plan (Volume 2-2)--517 pages, December 27, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Reserves
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Roads
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Rawlins 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/36342874?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-12-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RAWLINS+RESOURCE+MANGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALBANY%2C+LARAMIE%2C+AND+SWEETWATER+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH-CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHWESTERN+WYOMING.&rft.title=RAWLINS+RESOURCE+MANGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALBANY%2C+LARAMIE%2C+AND+SWEETWATER+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH-CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHWESTERN+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 27, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ELK AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK, COLORADO.
AN  - 36344297; 13078
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an elk and vegetation management plan for the Rocky Mountain National Park of Colorado is proposed. The park provides exceptional accessibility to a wild landscape with dramatic scenery, opportunities for solitude and tranquility, wildlife viewing, and a variety of other recreational opportunities. Elk populations in the park are far in excess of the high end of the natural variation range. Moreover, the elk have become overly concentrated in inappropriate areas, leading, among other problems, to the spread of a wasting disease that affects the park herds and drastically reducing stands of riparian willow and aspen, thereby upsetting the ecological balance of the park's ecosystem. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. All action alternatives address elk population numbers, vegetation management, adaptive management, monitoring and data collection, the humane treatment of elk, the distribution of meat from carcasses of elk affected by wasting disease to individuals in accordance with National Park Service health guidelines, protection of wilderness values in areas where management measures occur within designated wilderness, and public education. Alternative 2 would involve removal of elk using lethal means to reach a population target range at the lower end of the natural range of variation, which is between 1,200 and 1,700 elk. Reduction targets would be aggressive, removing 200 to 700 elk in the first four years to reduce the size of the population drastically, followed by less intensive yearly reductions of 25 to 150 elk each year of 16 years. The use of redistribution techniques and limited aspen fencing would also be required to meet vegetation objectives. Given appropriate interagency cooperation, redistribution techniques could include adaptive use of wolves as a management tool. Alternative 3, the preferred alternative, would rely on gradual lethal reduction of elk over time to achieve a high target elk population at the high end of the natural range of variation, between 1,600 and 2,100 animals. Inside the park, 100 to 200 elk would be removed annually over 20 years. The higher elk population target under this alternative would require additional measures, including aspen and montane riparian willow fencing and redistribution techniques to meet vegetation objectives. Alternative 4 would employ fertility control agents on elk to achieve a target elk population at the higher end of the natural range of variation, between 1,600 and 2,100. Lethal reduction of 80 to 150 elk per year would supplement fertility control. The higher population would require the same vegetation management measures as alternative 3. Alternative 5, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, would release a limited number of gray wolves in the park to be intensively managed and allowed to increase to a maximum population of 14 in a phased approach. Lethal reduction would decrease the elk population to the higher end of the natural range of variation, between 1,600 and 2,100 animals, during the first four years. Up to 100 elk would be lethally removed annually over the following 16 years to meet the natural range of variation, between 1,200 and 2,100 elk, depending on the wolves' effectiveness in redistributing elk. A limited extent of aspen fencing could also be required to meet vegetation objectives. Overall infrastructure costs for the preferred alternative is estimated at $2.2 million; annual cost for the 20-year program is estimated at $212,055. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would restore the elk population to the level that would be expected under natural conditions to the extent possible, maintaining a free-roaming population, decreasing the level of habituation to humans, restoring the population size to a level allowing it to fluctuate within the natural range of variation of between 1,200 and 2,100 elk, and redistributing elk to disperse high density subpopulations. The natural range of variation in vegetation conditions on the elk range would be restored or maintained to the extent possible by preventing loss of aspen clones within high elk use areas, restoring sustainable montane riparian willow, and reducing the level of elk grazing on herbaceous vegetation. Scientific data on the prevalence of the chronic wasting disease affecting elk in the park to ensure that the plan does not conflict with disease management measures. Elk viewing opportunities would continue to be provided. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Helicopters used to cull elk would generate uncharacteristic noise in the park, disturbing the pristine aspect of the park for recreationists. Lethal culling of elk would be an affront to persons who have ethical qualms regarding the killing of animals. Fences would interfere with the movement of wildlife species and detract from the wilderness values of the park. Reduction in the numbers of elk would decrease visitation to the park, as most visitors expect to be able to view elk in their natural habitat when coming to the park. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0363D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 070548, Final EIS--601 pages, Comments and Responses to Comments to the Draft EIS--155 pages, December 26, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 07-58
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Rocky Mountain National Park
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344297?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-12-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ELK+AND+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ROCKY+MOUNTAIN+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=ELK+AND+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ROCKY+MOUNTAIN+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Estes Park, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 26, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RED RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, MINNESOTA AND NORTH DAKOTA
AN  - 36343097; 13077
AB  - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a bulk water supply project to meet the long-term water needs of the Red River Valley in North Dakota and Minnesota are proposed. Most of the population of the Red River Valley, including the residents of Fargo and Grand Forks, North Dakota and Moorhead and East Grand Forks, Minnesota rely on the Red River of the North and its tributaries as primary or sole sources of water. A climate study to investigate the frequency of droughts in the Red River Basin concluded that the valley would probably experience an extreme drought in the next 50 years. It is estimated at the present -water supplies of the valley would fall short of meeting the current annual water demand by approximately 16 percent during a severe drought. Water users in the valley would experience a water supply deficit of 46 percent during the month of February. If population growth trends continue in the valley, the projected water supply shortages would become even greater in the future. The proposed action would include construction of features and facilities needed to develop and deliver sufficient water to existing infrastructure for distribution in municipal, rural, and industrial (MR&I) water users in the service area. A No Action Alternative and five action alternatives were considered in this final EIS. The alternative preferred by the state of North Dakota and the federal government, known as the GDU Import to Sheyenne River Alternative, would supplement existing water supplied to meet future water needs with a combination of Red River water, other North Dakota in-basin water sources, and imported Missouri River water. The principal feature of the alternative would consist of a pipeline from the McClusky Canal to Lake Ashtabula that would release treated Missouri River water into the Sheyenne River at a point three miles above the reservoir. The pipe would be sized so peak-day demands could be met by Lake Ashtabula releases into the Sheyenne River. This alternative would include a biota treatment plant at the McClusky Canal and a pipeline to serve industrial water demands in southeastern North Dakota. The biota treatment process would use coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, and ultraviolet disinfection. The import capacity of this alternative, as estimated by in report published in 2005, ranges from 62 to 97 cubic feet per second (cfs). However, earlier analysis estimated it at 78 to 120 cfs; this latter range was used in the impact analysis for this EIS because it provides the scope for a broader range of potential impacts. Annualized overall cost for construction of facilities and operation and maintenance of the state-preferred system is estimated at $32.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley as indicated in a number of previous studies, most recently a study published in 2005. Water would be supplied to the 13 eastern counties of North Dakota and the Minnesota communities of Brekenridge, Moorhead, and East Grand Forks. The total maximum annual MR&I water demand in 2050 of 114,000 to 143,000 acre-feet would be satisfied. Moreover, water quality would be improved such that current exceedances of federal quality standards and criteria would be addressed. The plan would also address needs related to maintenance of the aquatic environment, recreational users, and water conservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development and operations could result in impacts to water quality and quantity in the McClusky River as well as groundwater tables depending on the river for replenishment and stability. Associated impacts to aquatic communities, wetlands, grasslands, woodlands, and riparian areas would be expected. Pipeline construction could affect culturally significant structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-554) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0187D, Volume 30, Number 1. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0175D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 070546, Executive Summary--52 pages, Final EIS--553 pages, Appendices A through H--389 pages, Appendices I through M.1--410 pages, Appendices M.2 through N--781 pages, CD-ROMS (2, December 21, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 07-52
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Red River of the North
KW  - Sheyenne River
KW  - Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343097?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-12-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+RIVER+VALLEY+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+NORTH+DAKOTA&rft.title=RED+RIVER+VALLEY+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+NORTH+DAKOTA&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Billings, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 21, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, NORTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 36342570; 13076
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of a special water treatment plant (WTP) in association with a pipeline system being constructed to transport water from Lake Sakakawea 45 miles northward to a regional distribution facility in the city of Minot in North Dakota is proposed to resolve a potential problem related to the transportation of invasive aquatic species. The pipeline would resolve regional water supply shortages in the northwestern section of the state. For many years, residents of northwestern North Dakota have experienced water supply problems. Lake Sakakawea, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reservoir impounded by the Garrison Dam on the Missouri River, would provide 15,000 acre-feet of water annually. The most salient environmental issue identified during scoping relates to the movement of water from the Missouri River drainage area to the Hudson Bay drainage, potentially resulting in the transfer of invasive aquatic species between basins. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) conducted an analysis of this potential, resulting in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). Construction on the main water pipeline began in the spring of 2002. In October of 2002, the Canadian Province of Manitoba filed a lawsuit challenging the FONSI. A February 2005 court order directed Reclamation to revisit the FONSI after further environmental analysis, particularly with respect to potential impacts due to failure to fully treat the water at its Missouri River source and possible pipeline leaks and treatment system failures. This EIS evaluates three WTP alternatives that would further reduce the risk of transferring invasive species a cross drainages; the EIS also addresses a No Action Alternative. Other key issues addressed in the EIS process are those related to impacts on federally protected species, historic properties, Indian trust assets, social and economic conditions, and environmental justice. The proposed water treatment plant would be situated on a 41-acre site south of the drainage divide separating the Missouri and Hudson Bay basins in McLean County. Each of the project alternatives assumes that the existing Minot water treatment plant would be upgraded and expanded to a treatment capacity of 26 million gallons per day. The Basic Treatment Alternative would include pre-treatment (coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation), followed by chemical and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. The Conventional Treatment Alternative would include a pre-treatment process using dissolved air flotation followed by media filtration and disinfection using UV and chemicals. The Microfiltration Alternative would include pre-treatment via coagulation and flocculation followed by membrane filtration and chemical and UV disinfection. Costs of construction for the Basic Treatment, Conventional Treatment, and Microfiltration Alternative are estimated at $68 million, $73 million, and $90 million, respectively. Respective annual operation and maintenance costs for the three alternatives are $1.8 million, $1.8 million, and $2.1 million. Cost of the Minot treatment plant upgrades is estimated at $29.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The WTP would ensure that the water delivered to northwestern North Dakota would be clear of biota of any kind, precluding the possibility of the introduction of invasive aquatic biota into the Hudson Bay drainage. The new source of water in the northwestern portion of the state would support a high quality of life and boost economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Other than disturbances at the Minot and McLean County WTP sites, resulting in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat at the latter site, the project would have no significant impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 and Garrison Division Unit Reformulation Act of 1960.
JF  - EPA number: 070545, Executive Summary--19 pages, Draft EIS--112 pages, CD-ROM, December 21, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-63
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Foreign Policies
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Boundary Waters Treaty, Compliance
KW  - Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000, Project Authorization
KW  - Garrison Division Unit Reformulation Act of 1960, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342570?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-12-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Bismarck, North Dakota; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 21, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TO REMOVE OR MODIFY THE SURVEY AND MANAGE MITIGATION MEASURE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES, FOREST SERVICE NATIONAL FOREST REGIONS 5 AND 6 AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS IN WASHINGTON, OREGON, AND CALIFORNIA WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE SPOTTED OWL (SUPPLEMENT TO THE JULY 2006 DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2004).
AN  - 36342358; 12593
AB  - PURPOSE: The removal or modification of Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (SMMMSG) governing U.S. Forest Service in regions 5 and 6 and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) districts in Washington, Oregon, and California within the range of the endangered northern spotted owl is proposed. The proposal responds to a settlement agreement resulting from a lawsuit against the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior. The proposal would require amendment of the Northeast Forest Plan (NFP). Concerns have been raised that the SMMMSG are frustrating Forest Service and BLM efforts to the accomplish resource management objectives of the NFP. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the January 2004 final supplement to the final EIS of 1994 addressing the forest plan. The 304 affected species were analyzed to determine the consequences under the three alternatives. The analyses demonstrated that the SMMMSG and the Special Status Species programs add protection and reduce risk to species. Alternatives 2 or 3 would, respectively, amend or modify agency land and resource management plans to remove the SMMMSG. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would amend 28 land and resource management plans to remove SMMMSG provisions. The alternative would provide for surveys prior to habitat-disturbing activities, site management, conservation strategies, inventories, consideration of potential mitigation measures, the addition or removal of species from protective provisions, and provisions for reporting, monitoring, and review of land and resource management plans. The supplemental EIS of January 2004 provided additional analysis in response to three deficiencies in the foregoing EIS process by the District Court of the Western District of Washington in August 2005. To respond to these deficiencies, the supplement analyzed potential impacts to sensitive species not added to or removed from the special species protection programs of the Forest Service or the BLM; provides a thorough analysis of the assumption that late-successional reserves adequately protect species for the target protected species; and discloses and analyses flaws in the analytical methodology for calculating the acreage in need of hazardous fuel treatments and the related cost analysis methodology. The supplement at hand, which responds to a decision by the federal appeals court and which extends the July 2006 supplement, addresses an additional No Action Alternative (Alternative 4). Alternative 4 would retain the survey and manage standards and guidelines, but differs from the other No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) by including all 337 species covered by the 2001 SMMMSG (and their respective category assignments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would continue to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities in the affected areas; reduce the agencies' cost, time, and effort associated with rare and little known species conservation; and restore the agencies' ability to achieve resource management objectives that were established under the NFP. Compared to Alternative 1, annual timber harvest would be 100 million board-feet (MMBF) or 75 MMBF higher under alternatives 2 or 3, respectively. Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase annual employment and hazardous fuel treatment acreage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Recognizing that much remains unknown about many of the species, 141 species would remain at high risk of extirpation under all alternatives due to factors beyond the control of the FS and the BLM. A total of 47 and seven species, which are not at high risk under Alternative 1, would be at high risk of extirpation under alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the most recent final supplement EIS, see 06-0399D, Volume 30, Number 3. For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs, see 03-0399D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0279F, Volume 28, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of a previous draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0325D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060539, 166 pages, December 20, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Forests
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
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/36342358?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-12-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TO+REMOVE+OR+MODIFY+THE+SURVEY+AND+MANAGE+MITIGATION+MEASURE+STANDARDS+AND+GUIDELINES%2C+FOREST+SERVICE+NATIONAL+FOREST+REGIONS+5+AND+6+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+OREGON%2C+AND+CALIFORNIA+WITHIN+THE+RANGE+OF+THE+SPOTTED+OWL+%28SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+JULY+2006+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2004%29.&rft.title=TO+REMOVE+OR+MODIFY+THE+SURVEY+AND+MANAGE+MITIGATION+MEASURE+STANDARDS+AND+GUIDELINES%2C+FOREST+SERVICE+NATIONAL+FOREST+REGIONS+5+AND+6+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+OREGON%2C+AND+CALIFORNIA+WITHIN+THE+RANGE+OF+THE+SPOTTED+OWL+%28SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+JULY+2006+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 20, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PINEDALE ANTICLINE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING (REVISED DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1999).
AN  - 36343677; 13073
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 revised draft supplement to the October 1999 final EIS analyzes five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and the applicants' proposal. The draft 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 12,768 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 original draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0022D, Volume 31, Number 1. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, 00-0034D, Volume 24, Number 1 and 00-0262F, Volume 24, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 070542, Revised Draft Supplemental EIS--650 pages and maps, Air Quality Technical Report--760 pages, December 19, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-08/001+1310
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
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/36343677?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PINEDALE+ANTICLINE+OIL+AND+GAS+EXPLORATION+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING+%28REVISED+DRAFT+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+%28REVISED+DRAFT+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 - Draft. Preparation date: December 19, 2007
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.
AN  - 36343389; 13065
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 draft 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 070524, Volume 1--312 pages, Volume 20--421 pages, Volume 3--175 pages, December 13, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WO/GI-08-005-3900
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Geology
KW  - Hydrocarbons
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Shale
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
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/36343389?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-12-13&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.&rft.title=OIL+SHALE+AND+TAR+SANDS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENTS+TO+ADDRESS+LAND+USE+ALLOCATIONS+IN+COLORADO%2C+UTAH%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREETS AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE AND MADISON DRIVE IN NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
AN  - 36342961; 13070
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the National Museum of African-American History and Culture between 14th and 15th streets and Constitution Avenue and Madison Drive in Northwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed by the Smithsonian Institution. The project would provide and operate a permanent facility on the Washington Monument Grounds within the Smithsonian Institution on a five-acre parcel. Issues addressed in selecting the site and the building design include those related to massing (the form of a building conveying proportion and size), building height, setback and alignment, outdoor program space, and the viewshed. In addition the Smithsonian Institution developed eight overarching principles that provided a foundation for the development of alternatives, guided their refinement, and served as criteria for success; these principles are related to physical character, mission and program appropriateness, monumental context, urban design principles associated with physical context, historic and cultural resource protection, visitor use and access, visitor experience, and operational functionality. This draft EIS considers seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Depending on the action alternative considered, the building would rise 60 to 105 feet above street level, providing for five to eight floors above grade and two to three floors below grade. The facility would contain 350,000 to 430,000 square feet. The north-south building orientation would align with the National Museum of American History's (NMAH) main building mass under three alternatives, the NMAH's north facade building mass under one alternative; and with no surrounding building under two alternatives. The east-west building orientation would align with the protecting portico of the Department of Commerce, the southwest facade of the Washington Monument, or 14th Street, or would be unaligned with respect to east-west orientation. Aesthetically, Alternative 1 would result in contextual massing the explicitly related to the pattern of buildings fronting the National Mall. Alternative 2 would be less convention in form and bridge the axis of the Mall with the north-south axis of open spaces leading to the White House. Alternative 3 would provide a more complex design, with the potential for buildings that look very different from a variety of locations. Alternative 4 would provide two distinct aesthetic experiences, blending into the landscape towards the Monument, while exhibiting more traditional building facades at the intersection of Constitution Avenue and 14th Street. Alternative 5 would provide for a bifurcated structure with varying heights, relating to context through building and spatial orientation rather than building or height alignment. Alternative 6 would offer a minimized visible mass and a soft edge along the southwest facade that would be aligned with 15th Street and Madison Drive, deferring to the presence of the Washington Monument. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The museum would be dedicated to the collection, preservation, research, and exhibition of American historical and cultural materials, reflecting the breadth and depth of the experience of individuals of African descent living in the United States. It would constitute the only institution providing a national meeting place for Americans to learn about the history and culture of African-Americans and their contributions to and relationship with every aspect of our national life. Increased visitation to the District of Columbia due to the attraction of the museum would boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The museum would displace an open space on the Washington Monument grounds of the National Mall, altering the historic boundaries of the grounds and altering the spatial organization of the grounds by diminishing the prominence of the Washington Monument as a central organizing feature. Significant impacts would also occur for buildings and structures located within the Monument grounds as well as the Federal Triangle along Constitution Avenue. Vegetation and alternative land uses would be removed. The viewshed and specific vistas would be altered. The museum would be situated in an area in violation of federal standards regarding ozone and particulate matter. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-184).
JF  - EPA number: 070529, 356 pages (oversized), Appendices--184 pages (oversized, December 13, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: SI 0495801A
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Museums
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - District of Columbia
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2003, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342961?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMITHSONIAN+INSTITUTION+NATIONAL+MUSEUM+OF+AFRICAN-AMERICAN+HISTORY+AND+CULTURE%2C+BETWEEN+14TH+AND+15TH+STREETS+AND+CONSTITUTION+AVENUE+AND+MADISON+DRIVE+IN+NORTHWEST+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=SMITHSONIAN+INSTITUTION+NATIONAL+MUSEUM+OF+AFRICAN-AMERICAN+HISTORY+AND+CULTURE%2C+BETWEEN+14TH+AND+15TH+STREETS+AND+CONSTITUTION+AVENUE+AND+MADISON+DRIVE+IN+NORTHWEST+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Smithsonian Institution, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SAN JUAN PUBLIC LANDS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAN JUAN NATIONAL FOREST AND DOLORES, COLUMBINE, AND PAGOSA FIELD OFFICE, ARCHULETA, CONEJOS, DOLORES, HINSDALE, LA PLATA, MINERAL, MONTEZUMA, MONTROSEE, RIO GRANDE, SAN JUAN, AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 36347116; 13054
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan is proposed for these public lands in Colorado: 1.9 million acres within the San Juan National Forest administered by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and 500,000 surface acres and 300,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the Columbine, Dolores, and Pagosa research management areas. The planning area lies in Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, La Plata, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Rio Grande, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, all in southwestern Colorado. The BLM and USFS holdings in southwestern Colorado are managed under a combined "Service First" partnership. Issues identified during scoping include those related to balancing management between the maintenance of "working forests and rangelands" and of retaining core undeveloped lands; providing recreation and travel management within a sustainable ecological framework; management of special areas and unique landscapes; and management of impacts from oil and gas leasing and development. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would provide for a mix of multiple-use activities, with a primary emphasis on maintaining most of the large, contiguous blocks of undeveloped lands and enhancing various forms of recreational experiences associated with these and other zones within the planning area, while maintaining the diversity of uses and active forest and rangeland vegetation management. Uses and activities that require roads, such as timber harvesting and oil and gas development, would be focused in areas with pre-existing roads. Relatively undeveloped areas and areas that currently have no roads would, for the most part, remain in those conditions. Alternative C provides for a mix of multiple-use activities, with a primary emphasis on preserving the undeveloped character of the San Juan public lands. Alternative D would provide for a mix of multiple-use activities, with a primary emphasis on preserving the "working forest and rangelands" character of the lands in order to generate the highest amount of commodity goods and services possible. These alternatives, plus a no-leasing alternative, are described as part of the USFS oil and gas leasing availability analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the maximum protection of remoteness and solitude throughout most of the planning area. Nevertheless, essential resources, such as oil and gas, would be made accessible to leasees able to exploit them for the socioeconomic advantage of the general population. Preservation and enhancement of rangelands would promote local cultural values and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities, timber harvest, and similarly invasive exploitative encroachments would disturb soils and destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, mar visual aesthetics, and otherwise degrade the natural environment. Restrictions on exploitative uses, particularly oil and gas lease restrictions, would reduce the overall economic value of the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070514, Volume 1--747 pages, Volume 2--293 pages, Volume 3--701 pages, CD-ROM, December 6, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Forests
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Columbine Resource Management Area
KW  - Dolores Resource Management Area
KW  - Pagosa Research Management Area
KW  - San Juan National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347116?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-12-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+JUAN+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+DOLORES%2C+COLUMBINE%2C+AND+PAGOSA+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSEE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+PUBLIC+LANDS+LAND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SAN+JUAN+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+DOLORES%2C+COLUMBINE%2C+AND+PAGOSA+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ARCHULETA%2C+CONEJOS%2C+DOLORES%2C+HINSDALE%2C+LA+PLATA%2C+MINERAL%2C+MONTEZUMA%2C+MONTROSEE%2C+RIO+GRANDE%2C+SAN+JUAN%2C+AND+SAN+MIGUEL+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Durango, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 6, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - THREE RIVERS STONE QUARRY EXPANSION PROJECT, CUSTER COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36344342; 13097
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the plan of operations for the Three Rivers Stone Quarry Expansion in Custer County, Idaho is proposed by the L&W Stone Company. Even though L&W Stone's quarry production has increased over the years, it has been unable to keep up with demand for its flagstone products. The quarry, which is mined for flagstone, lies roughly five miles east of the town of Clayton, just north of the confluence of the East Fork Salmon and Salmon rivers, and entirely within lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management's Challis Field Office. Mining at the quarry has occurred since the 1970s. Mining is currently taking place under an interim mining plan. In 2005, as the result of a lawsuit, the U.S. District Court ordered that an EIS be completed for the amended plan of operations and alternatives submitted by L&W stone in 2002 and analyzed in 2004 in an Environmental Assessment. The court decision allowed L&W Stone to continue to operate under an interim mining plan until the EIS process is completed. Key issues identified during s coping include those related to protection of the East Fork Salmon River Bench Area of Critical Environmental Concern/Research Natural Area; maintaining the values of the Salmon and East Fork Salmon rivers; improving the socioeconomic status of the Challis area; protecting visual qualities in the area; protecting fish and wildlife, including federally protected species; protecting water quality; minimizing noise impacts to residents and wildlife from the use of explosives; reducing and mitigating dust generated by mining activities; and maintaining and protecting tribal treaty rights and interests. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred amendment alternative (Alternative D), the quarry would be expanded. This would require the upgrading of roads, expansion of existing pits and possible creation of new pits, exploration for additional flagstone, drilling a well under an approved water right, and reclaiming disturbed areas after mining. Mining would continue in pits 1 and 2, but mining activities would also be expanded into two new prospective pits that contain unproven reserves of flagstone. Mining operations would continue over up to 40 years. One of the new pits would be located on a know, with the flagstone outcrop located on the upper western flank of the ridge extending to the top of the ridge. The other new pit would be located on a rounded know south of the first new pit. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the new mining plan would allow L&W Stone Company to mine sufficient flagstone to meet market demand, which has increased substantially since 2000 and is expected to continue to increase. The quarry would provide 66 year-found and 46 seasonal jobs and otherwise contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Future mining would result in up to 73 acres of new surface disturbance, and another 18 acres would be disturbed for exploration purposes. Overall surface disturbance, including existing and planned developments, would amount to 183 acres. Up to 300,000 tons of waste rock and flagstone would be removed per year. Blasting to expose flagstone would occur up to 32 times per month. From 1,500 to 2,000 truckloads of flagstone would leave the site each year. Operations would consume 95,000 gallons per day. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070532, pages, December 6, 2007
PY  - 2007
EP  - ages, December 6
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-id-330-2006-eis-1464
KW  - Quarries
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Challis Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344342?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-12-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=ages&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=THREE+RIVERS+STONE+QUARRY+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=THREE+RIVERS+STONE+QUARRY+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Challis, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 6, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BAY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - BAY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 756824990; 13051-070511_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Bay Management Area of Alaska is proposed. The study area encompasses 22.6 million acres, of which 2.5 million acres are public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, in the Bristol Bay and Goodnews Bay areas of southwestern Alaska. Resource uses within the management area include forestry, livestock and reindeer grazing, and minerals extraction, recreation, renewable energy developments. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to oil and gas exploration and development leasing and its impact on sustainable natural resources and subsistence activities, land tenure adjustments to consolidate discontinuous blocks of public land to ease management, determination of the means by which access is to be provided to BLM managed lands for various management purposes, designation of special management areas, and designation of rivers for consideration for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would balance resource protection with resource exploitation. Withdrawals under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) would be revoked, and the majority of unencumbered lands, and any associated lands whose selection would be relinquished or rejected, would be open to oil and gas leasing and development subject to seasonal or other restrictions and to mineral location. Approximately 3,999 acres would continue to be withdrawn under ANCSA. One area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) would be established, namely, the Carter Spit ACEC; plans would be developed and specific measures adopted to protect values in this area. The ACEC would be closed to salable mineral entry. No river corridors would be recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Specific lands in the Goodnews Bay and Bristol Bay areas would be managed up to 0.5 mile from established winter trail or road systems at Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class III. BLM lands in the full visible foreground up to one mile from the boundaries of coastal scenic units would be managed at VRM Class IV. The ACEC would be managed for VRM Class III. All BLM-managed lands within the planning area. All other BLM lands would be managed at VRM Class IV. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on all BLM lands would be limited, allowing for limitations to be placed on OHV use to protect habitat, soil and vegetation, and/or recreation resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for protection, use, and enhancement of resources. The plan would provide site-specific management guidance on 1.2 million acres of unencumbered BLM-administered land as well as any of the 1.3 million acres of state-selected or Native American-selected lands that remain under BLM jurisdiction until such lands are conveyed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploitation, particularly extraction of oil and gas, would disturb soils and destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Exploitative uses would also place pressure on subsistence activities and reduce the extent of rangeland useful for grazing. Finally forest products exploitation and mineral extraction and the associated road construction would mar visual aesthetics in the area and generally reduce the pristine values associated with the coastal region. OHV restrictions would reduce access to and within some locales within the Bay Area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0553D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 070511, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--222 pages, Map Supplement, December 3, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Bays
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Geothermal Resources
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Bay Resource Management Area
KW  - Bristol Bay
KW  - Goodnews Bay
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824990?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=BAY+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 3, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BAY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 36343352; 13051
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Bay Management Area of Alaska is proposed. The study area encompasses 22.6 million acres, of which 2.5 million acres are public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, in the Bristol Bay and Goodnews Bay areas of southwestern Alaska. Resource uses within the management area include forestry, livestock and reindeer grazing, and minerals extraction, recreation, renewable energy developments. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to oil and gas exploration and development leasing and its impact on sustainable natural resources and subsistence activities, land tenure adjustments to consolidate discontinuous blocks of public land to ease management, determination of the means by which access is to be provided to BLM managed lands for various management purposes, designation of special management areas, and designation of rivers for consideration for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would balance resource protection with resource exploitation. Withdrawals under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) would be revoked, and the majority of unencumbered lands, and any associated lands whose selection would be relinquished or rejected, would be open to oil and gas leasing and development subject to seasonal or other restrictions and to mineral location. Approximately 3,999 acres would continue to be withdrawn under ANCSA. One area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) would be established, namely, the Carter Spit ACEC; plans would be developed and specific measures adopted to protect values in this area. The ACEC would be closed to salable mineral entry. No river corridors would be recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Specific lands in the Goodnews Bay and Bristol Bay areas would be managed up to 0.5 mile from established winter trail or road systems at Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class III. BLM lands in the full visible foreground up to one mile from the boundaries of coastal scenic units would be managed at VRM Class IV. The ACEC would be managed for VRM Class III. All BLM-managed lands within the planning area. All other BLM lands would be managed at VRM Class IV. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on all BLM lands would be limited, allowing for limitations to be placed on OHV use to protect habitat, soil and vegetation, and/or recreation resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for protection, use, and enhancement of resources. The plan would provide site-specific management guidance on 1.2 million acres of unencumbered BLM-administered land as well as any of the 1.3 million acres of state-selected or Native American-selected lands that remain under BLM jurisdiction until such lands are conveyed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploitation, particularly extraction of oil and gas, would disturb soils and destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Exploitative uses would also place pressure on subsistence activities and reduce the extent of rangeland useful for grazing. Finally forest products exploitation and mineral extraction and the associated road construction would mar visual aesthetics in the area and generally reduce the pristine values associated with the coastal region. OHV restrictions would reduce access to and within some locales within the Bay Area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0553D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 070511, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--222 pages, Map Supplement, December 3, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Bays
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Geothermal Resources
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Bay Resource Management Area
KW  - Bristol Bay
KW  - Goodnews Bay
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343352?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=BAY+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 3, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Bay proposed resource management plan and final environmental impact statement
AN  - 51080412; 2008-082384
JF  - Bay proposed resource management plan and final environmental impact statement
Y1  - 2007/12//
PY  - 2007
DA  - December 2007
KW  - United States
KW  - mineral exploration
KW  - public policy
KW  - regional planning
KW  - impact statements
KW  - environmental analysis
KW  - mineral resources
KW  - environmental management
KW  - land management
KW  - report
KW  - ecology
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Southwestern Alaska
KW  - land use
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
KW  - 26A:Economic geology, general, deposits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51080412?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-12-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Bay+proposed+resource+management+plan+and+final+environmental+impact+statement&rft.title=Bay+proposed+resource+management+plan+and+final+environmental+impact+statement&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2008-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 465
N1  - Availability - U. S. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage Field Office, Anchorage, AK, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 65 tables
N1  - SuppNotes - In 3 volumes
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WILD AND SCENIC RIVER SUITABILITY STUDY FOR NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS IN UTAH.
AN  - 36351861; 13048
AB  - PURPOSE: The eligibility of 840 miles of candidate river segments across 86 rivers within five Utah national forests for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System (NWSRS). The rivers run through five national forest, namely, the Ashley, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-LaSal, and Unita national forests. National forest managers in Utah have evaluated river segments on national forest for their potential eligibility for inclusion in the NWSRS. The eligibility inventory and tentative classification for 78 segments took place during forest land and resource management plan revision. In addition, eight stream segments on the Dixie National Forest were found eligible for suitability consideration by an interagency planning process that included the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the National Park Service (NPS). Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts on future water resource developments from designation of river segments for inclusion in the NWSRS; uses and activities that may be precluded, limited, or enhanced if a particular river segment and its corridor were included in the NWSRS; local economic impacts of designation of a wild and scenic river; long-term protection of resource values; consistency with wild and scenic river studies conducted by the BLM and NPS; and consistency with state, county, and local government laws and plans. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would maintain the eligibility of all rivers, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would recommend no rivers for inclusion in the NWSRS. Alternative 3 would recommend rivers that best represent Utah outstanding and remarkable values (ORVs) while having the least impact on existing or reasonably foreseeable future water resources projects and other developments. Alternative 4 would recommend rivers that best represent Utah ORVs that could be adversely affected by existing or reasonably foreseeable future water resources projects and other developmental activities. Alternative 5 would recommend rivers allowing low-cost management that would be consistent with other federal wild and scenic river studies and that would have limited negative impact to community economic development. Alternative 6 would recommend river segments recognized by public groups that represent a diversity of river systems in Utah an those that face future threats to their scenic and ecological integrity. Alternative 3, which has been identified as the preferred alternative, would recommend 24 river segments for inclusion in the NWSRS, including 132 miles to be classified as wild, 56 miles to be classified as scenic, and 24 miles to be classified as recreational. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The river segments chosen for classification would best represent the Utah's ORVs while having the least impact to future planned development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: No negative impacts were specified for this draft EIS.
JF  - EPA number: 070508, 286 pages and maps, November 28, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Water
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Ashley National Forest
KW  - Dixie National Forest
KW  - Fishlake National Forest
KW  - Manti-LaSal National Forest
KW  - Unita National Forest
KW  - Utah
KW  - Wasatch-Cache National Forest
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351861?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-11-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+SUITABILITY+STUDY+FOR+NATIONAL+FOREST+SYSTEM+LANDS+IN+UTAH.&rft.title=WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+SUITABILITY+STUDY+FOR+NATIONAL+FOREST+SYSTEM+LANDS+IN+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Sacramento, California; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 28, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EL CENTRO FIELD OFFICE, EASTERN SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36343289; 13047
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised resource management plan For administering approximately 103,303 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land in eastern San Diego County, California is proposed. Key issues identified during scoping include those related the management of recreation and public access, designation and management of special areas, management of visual resources, and protection of cultural resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Mixed Alternative, would provide for visitation and development within the planning area, while ensuring that resource protection was not compromised. Alternative C, the Conservation Alternative, would generally emphasize the preservation of the planning area's natural and cultural resources through limitation of public use and discontinuation of livestock grazing. Alternative D, the Development Alternative, would provide more opportunities for development of resources, such as renewable energy, transportation, and utility rights-of-way, as well and enhanced recreational opportunities. Alternative E, the preferred alternative, would provide for a full multiple-use, sustained yield regime. Specific stipulations and measures under the various alternatives would address vegetation resource management, wildlife habitat management, special status species management, visual resource protection, wilderness designations, designation of areas of critical environmental concern, livestock grazing, mineral resource exploration and leasing, recreation resource land allocations and management, off-highway vehicle use areas, the travel and transportation system (including designation of road and trail corridors), and lands and reality management (including acquisition and disposition of lands). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbances due to management activities, economic resource exploitation, and recreational visitation would disturb soils and destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and result in increased sediment levels in receiving surface waters, degrading aquatic habitat. Visual quality in areas under development activities, particularly the exploitation of minerals and the construction and operation of roads, would be degraded significantly. Livestock grazing would be prohibited in all BLM-administered lands, removing ranges from use by potential allotment operators, 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 07-0064D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 070507, Volume I--626 pages and maps, Volume II--377 pages and maps, November 28, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2007-016+1793
KW  - DES 07-02
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - El Centro Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343289?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-11-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EL+CENTRO+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+EASTERN+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EL+CENTRO+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+EASTERN+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 28, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - VEGETATION TREATMENTS USING HERBICIDES ON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS IN 17 WESTERN STATES: ALASKA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, TEXAS, SOUTH DAKOTA, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING (RECORD OF DECISION).
AN  - 36342791; 13032
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of vegetation treatments using herbicides on 261 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in 17 western states is proposed. The BLM lands are situated in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The presence of weeds and invasive species puts forests and other vegetated lands at risk for wildland fire and reduces the ecological productivity and diversity of individual watersheds. These noxious plants, which constitute the dominant vegetation on 3.5 million acres of public lands, threaten soil productivity, water quality and yield, native plant communities, wildlife habitat, wilderness values, recreational values, and livestock forage, and are detrimental to agriculture and commerce as well as to public health. The final programmatic EIS of June 2007 considered the use of herbicide and non-herbicide plant control methods, including chemicals, prescribed fire, mechanical removal, and biological controls. The analysis also addressed the appropriate active herbicide ingredients. In addition to the herbicides currently approved for use, additional active ingredients were considered for use by the BLM to manage and control unwanted vegetation. At present, the BLM treats 300,000 acres per year using 20 approved herbicides. The final EIS also contained a state-of-the-science human and ecological risk assessment methodology developed in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and wildlife Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; this methodology and protocol would service as the initial standard for assessing human health and ecological risks when evaluating herbicides for future use. Together, herbicide and non-herbicide treatments constitute the integrated pest management program that the BLM would apply annually to approximately 6.0 million acres of public lands in 17 Western states, including Alaska, increasing the annual area of coverage by 4.0 million acres. Five alternative approaches were considered in the draft EIS of November 2005. The No Action Alternative (Alternative A) would continue the existing management program. The approach identified in the draft EIS as the preferred alternative (Alternative B), which constitutes the currently proposed approach, would provide for treatments on 932,000 acres annually and the adoption of four new herbicides for use on public lands. Alternative C would eliminate the use of herbicides from the treatment regime. Alternative D would provide for herbicide use, but would not allow aerial application of herbicides. Alternative E would limit herbicide use to non-acetolactate synthase-inhibiting active ingredients. This record of decision summarizes the alternatives and their impacts and again identifies Alternative B as the proposed action and preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire by reducing hazardous fuels, restoring fire-damaged lands, and improving ecosystem health. Weeds and invasive species would be controlled, and vegetation would be manipulated to benefit fish and wildlife habitat, improve riparian and wetland areas, and improve water quality in priority watersheds. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though degradation of surface water flows would be minor and transient, groundwater quality could be affected over a longer period of time by certain herbicides. Non-target terrestrial and aquatic vegetation would be destroyed, particularly following aerial herbicide applications, and the health of the public, and particularly field workers, exposed to chemicals could be affected. Fish and wildlife health, and the health of domesticated farm and range livestock could also be placed in jeopardy due to some chemical applications. Treatments could result in short-term degradation of local visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Plant Protection Act of 2000, and Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (P.L. 104-19), and Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0071D, Volume 30, Number 1 and 07-0212F, Volume 31, Number 2, respectively,
JF  - EPA number: 070264, 121 pages, November 14, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Hazardous Substances
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WO/GI-07/009+6711
KW  - Biocontrol
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Health Hazards
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Nevada
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Oklahoma
KW  - Oregon
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Texas
KW  - Utah
KW  - Washington
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance
KW  - Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342791?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VEGETATION+TREATMENTS+USING+HERBICIDES+ON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+LANDS+IN+17+WESTERN+STATES%3A+ALASKA%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+OREGON%2C+TEXAS%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%2C+UTAH%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=VEGETATION+TREATMENTS+USING+HERBICIDES+ON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+LANDS+IN+17+WESTERN+STATES%3A+ALASKA%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+OREGON%2C+TEXAS%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%2C+UTAH%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 14, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES.
AN  - 36341119; 13024
AB  - PURPOSE: The designation of energy corridors on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, new Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming is proposed in the programmatic EIS. Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs the secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the Interior to designate corridors on federal land in these 11 western states to accommodate oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution corridors. Electricity consumers in the western United States rely on an integrated network of more than 49,430 miles of transmission lines. Due to the West's unique geography and population distribution, where fuel sources and energy generation facilities are often remotely located and large population centers are spread far apart, the electricity transmission grid is typified by high-voltage transmission lines spanning long distances. The need for additional transmission infrastructure is influenced by market restructuring, new energy policies seeking renewable resources, population growth, underinvestment in new lines and technology by the utility sector, and system reliability concerns. There are more than 27,000 miles of natural gas pipeline in the 11 western states. Due to market changes and environmental considerations, natural gas has played an increasingly important role as an energy source. Similarly oil will and hydrogen fuel may have a significant role in the energy source mix in the affected states. One of the chief barriers to the development energy transport infrastructure is inconsistency in agency procedures for granting rights-of-way (ROW). Under the proposed action, the various department-level secretaries would designate Section 368 energy corridors and amendment of land use plans on federal land. Approximately 6,055 miles of Section 368 corridors would be designated within federal lands within the 11 western states using environmental, engineering, and land use screening criteria to reduce potential environmental and land use conflicts. More specifically, the proposed action would designate 644 miles of corridor in Arizona, 814 miles in California, 420 miles in Colorado, 410 miles in Idaho, 102 miles in Montana, 1,630 miles in Nevada, 314 miles in New Mexico, 591 miles in Oregon, 640 miles in Utah, 54 miles in Washington, and 438 miles in Wyoming. Each 3,500-foot-wide corridor would be designated for multimodal energy transport. Though 3,500 feet would be the standard width, energy corridor widths proposed during scoping ranged from as narrow as 60 feet to more than five miles. Special provisions have been made for t he protection of species protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the siting and development of energy transport project would continue under current agency procedures for the granting of ROW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By designating corridors for the preferred location of future oil, gas and hydrogen pipelines and electric transmission lines in a coordinated manner, the development of these transportation facilities can be incorporated into the various land and resource management plans established by the affected agencies. Depending on the state considered, from 48 to 94 percent of the utility corridor lengths would lie within existing and transportation ROW and, overall, 61 percent of the corridor lengths would lie within existing ROW. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The utility corridors would displace 360,836 in Arizona, 287,657 acres in California, 261,839 acres in Colorado, 161,503 acres in Idaho, 42,047 acres in Montana, 925,051 acres in Nevada, 129,929 acres in New Mexico, 238,200 acres in Oregon, 355,941 acres in Utah, 6,929 acres in Washington, and 185,592 acres in Wyoming. Other land uses would be either displaced or severely restricted by the construction, operation, and maintenance of the utility lines within the ROW corridors. Construction of utility lines would be expected to affect wetlands, ranges, forested land, farmland, desert land, rivers and streams, cultural resource sites, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected species. The lines would also degrade visual aesthetics and impact paleontological resources and cultural resources, including cultural resources of importance to Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Energy Policy Act of 2005.
JF  - EPA number: 070488, Final EIS--601 pages, Appendices--375 pages, Maps Atlas-203 pages (oversized), CD-ROM, November 7, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0386
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hydrocarbons
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Montana
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Utah
KW  - Washington
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36341119?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-11-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 7, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, CHAVES, EDDY, LEA, AND ROOSEVELT COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 36342096; 13003
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the resource management plan for public lands and mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management Pecos District Office in Chaves, Eddy, Lea, and Roosevelt counties, New Mexico is proposed to revise management planning for special status species. The amendment would modify the 1988 Carlsbad Resource Management Plan. Special status species include all state-listed and federally listed threatened and endangered species and other species given special attention by government agencies. In particular, the amendment would address management prescriptions concerning habitat for the lesser prairie chicken and the san dune lizard. Key issues addressed during scoping include those related to wildlife habitat, oil and gas development, livestock grazing, off-highway vehicle use and use area designations, and areas of critical environmental concern (ACEC). Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives would address lands and realty, fluid minerals, alternative energy sources, soils, water resources, floodplains, air quality, vegetation, non-native and invasive species, livestock management, wildlife habitat, recreation resources, off-highway vehicle use, visual resources, and special management areas. All action alternatives would also identify areas closed to new oil and gas leasing, adjust range management for livestock grazing according to watershed conditions, and designate one new ACEC and modify management of the existing ACECs. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would represent a conservation strategy and would add emphasis to sand dune lizard habitat and surface reclamation. The concepts of the New Mexico Lesser Prairie Chicken/Sand Dune Lizard Working Group's Draft Collaborative Conservation Strategy would be supplemented by measures designed to provide greater protection of lesser prairie chicken and sand dune lizard habitats and to increase the emphasis on habitat reclamation. New oil and gas leases outside the Carlsbad Management Area, but within sand dune lizard habitat, would include stipulations for surveys to locate occupied habitat prior to lease tract development. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance habitat protection for the benefit of special status species with the exploitation of nonwildlife resources within the management area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Areas closed to mineral exploration and development would be removed from the potential economic base of the region and the availability of these energy resources would be withheld from the national market. Exploitative uses of the management area would result in disturbance and destruction of habitat and incidental take of endangered species as well as damage to sensitive vegetation, grazing resources, watersheds, and visual aesthetics and other recreational values. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 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 06-0560D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 070467, Final EIS--362 pages and maps, Appendices--297 pages and maps, November 1, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM NM/PL-07-06-1610
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Geothermal Resources
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Carlsbad Resource Management Area
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342096?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPECIAL+STATUS+SPECIES+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CHAVES%2C+EDDY%2C+LEA%2C+AND+ROOSEVELT+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SPECIAL+STATUS+SPECIES+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CHAVES%2C+EDDY%2C+LEA%2C+AND+ROOSEVELT+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Roswell, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 1, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND ASSOCIATED NATURAL COMMUNITY PLAN AND SANTA ROSA AND SAN JACINTO MOUNTAINS TRAILS PLAN, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (SUPPLEMENTAL RECIRCULATED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT).
AN  - 36341094; 13004
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a mutlispecies habitat conservation plan, an associated natural community conservation, and a trails plans for a 1.2-million-acre planning area within the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains in Riverside County, California is proposed. The plans are in response to the application for an incidental take permit for species related to activities that have the potential to result in take, pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and its implementing regulations and policies. The Coachella Valley constitutes the westernmost extension of the Colorado River subunit of the Sonoran Desert and provides unique and diverse habitats that support many highly specialized species or plants and animals. The multispecies habitat conservation plan and natural community conservation plan would encompass 1.2 million acres and provide for a net planning area of 1.1 million acres, excluding Indian reservation lands not covered by the plan. the planning area extends from the Cabazon area of the San Gorgonio Pass in the northwest to lands surrounding the northern portions of the Salton Sea to the southeast. The planning area also includes mountainous areas and most of he associated watersheds surrounding the valley floor. The plan would provide for a conservation preserve system encompassing 723,480 acres of existing public and private conservation lands and the acquisition and/or management of 166,380 acres of additional conservation lands. Six Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental recirculated final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would seek commitments by local, state, and federal agencies to implement the multispecies plan, acquire land and develop land management strategies by governments at all levels, provide for permanent preserve protection and management of habitats and populations of plant and animal species conserved in the Coachella Valley planning area, issue take permits in exchange for the i9mplementtation of an integrated conservation strategy and maintenance of the preserve system, seek issuance of take permits from federal and state authorities to permit land use and development that disturbs target species' habitats and natural communities covered under the plan, and incorporate amendments to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan into the multispecies plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The overall management scheme would help maintain and enhance the biological diversity and ecosystem processes in the area, while allowing for future economic growth within the Coachella Valley. Plan implementation would provide for permanent open space, community edges, and recreational opportunities and otherwise contribute to the community character of the valley. Enhancement of recreational resources would also enhance one of the area's most valuable economic resources, namely, tourism. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Land uses and developments in some areas would be significantly limited, impeding economic growth in some cases. Incidental take of federally protected species would result in the loss of individuals, but the efforts to protect species at the population level would not be affected. Periodic drain and flood control activity would alter natural flooding and other hydrologic processes, and the use of off-highway vehicles in the area would damage natural communities. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 05-0199D, Volume 29, Number 2 and 06-0259F, Volume 30, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 070468, Volume 1--2,217 pages, Volume 2--89 pages, Volume 3--921 pages and maps, Volume 4--642 pages, Volume 5--788 pages. CD-ROM, October 31, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: FES 07-41
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Trails
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - Sonoran Desert
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36341094?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COACHELLA+VALLEY+MULTIPLE+SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN+AND+ASSOCIATED+NATURAL+COMMUNITY+PLAN+AND+SANTA+ROSA+AND+SAN+JACINTO+MOUNTAINS+TRAILS+PLAN%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28SUPPLEMENTAL+RECIRCULATED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=COACHELLA+VALLEY+MULTIPLE+SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN+AND+ASSOCIATED+NATURAL+COMMUNITY+PLAN+AND+SANTA+ROSA+AND+SAN+JACINTO+MOUNTAINS+TRAILS+PLAN%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28SUPPLEMENTAL+RECIRCULATED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GUARDIAN EXPANSION AND EXTENSION PROJECT, ILLINOIS AND WISCONSIN (DOCKET NO. CP07-8-000, CP07-8-001, CP07-8-002).
AN  - 36347266; 12996
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Guardian Pipeline, LLC is proposed for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Illinois and Wisconsin. The Energy Information Administration estimates that total energy consumption in the United States will increase from 100.2 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) per year in 2005 to 131.2 quadrillion Btu per year in 2030. To maintain pace economic and population development, the applicant anticipates that consumption of natural gas in the country will grow from 2.2 trillion cubic feet per year in 2005 to 26.1 trillion cubic feet by 2030. The applicant would construct and operate 83.9 miles of 30-inch natural gas pipeline in Jefferson, Dodge, Fond du Lac, Calumet, Brown, and Outagamie counties, Wisconsin; 31.3 miles of 20-inch pipeline in Brown and Outagamie counties; 1.4 miles of 16-inch pipeline in Brown County; two 20-inch branch lines extending 1.8 miles and 0.8 mile in Outagamie County; two new 39,000 horsepower electric motor driven compressor stations, including the Sycamore Compressor Station in Sycamore Township, DeKalb County, Illinois and the Bluff Creek Compressor Station in the town of LaGrange, Walworth County, Wisconsin; modifications to the existing Ixonia Meter Station in Jefferson County, Wisconsin; seven new meter stations in Dodge, Fond du Lac, Calumet, Brown, and Outagamie counties, Wisconsin; two new pig launcher facilities, including a 30-inch launcher within the applicant's existing Ixonia Meter Station; a 30-inch receiver and 20-inch diameter launcher within the proposed Fox Meter Station in Brown County, Wisconsin; a 20-inch receiver within the proposed West Green Bay Meter Station in Outagamie County, Wisconsin; and six new mainline valves, four of which would be placed along the 30-inch pipeline in Dodge, Fond du Lac , and Calumet counties, Wisconsin and two of which would be placed along the 20-inch pipeline in Brown and Outagamie counties, Wisconsin. Project construction would commence in the spring of 2008 and conclude in November 2008. In addition to the proposed actions, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, alternative energy sources, energy conservation, systems alternatives, route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline extension project would allow the applicant to provide 537,2000 decatherms per day of additional natural gas capacity to its existing pipeline system. The additional capacity would facilitate the transportation of natural gas to customers within the state of Wisconsin, providing those customers with the necessary infrastructure to support growth and competition within the natural gas marketplace. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, aquatic resources, threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, and air quality and noise levels. Construction activities would result in short-term degradation of surface water flows as well as groundwater quality. However, since the proposed construction activities would largely result in temporary damages, most of the impacts on the abovementioned resources, including vegetation removal, disturbed soils, increased erosion potential and the associated stream sedimentation, and habitat alteration and other wildlife impacts would also be temporary. The most significant impacts would involve temporary damage to wetlands and long-term displacement of forested wetlands and upland forest. Forested wetlands would suffer from altered soils, hydrology, and vegetative cover. Several acres of forested wetlands would be cleared and converted to emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands and maintained in those states within the permanent rights-of-way. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), 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: 070460, 741 pages, CD-ROM, October 26, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0212F
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat GTS]Illinois
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347266?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-10-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUARDIAN+EXPANSION+AND+EXTENSION+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+WISCONSIN+%28DOCKET+NO.+CP07-8-000%2C+CP07-8-001%2C+CP07-8-002%29.&rft.title=GUARDIAN+EXPANSION+AND+EXTENSION+PROJECT%2C+ILLINOIS+AND+WISCONSIN+%28DOCKET+NO.+CP07-8-000%2C+CP07-8-001%2C+CP07-8-002%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 26, 2007
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.
AN  - 36351097; 12990
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 he 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 draft 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 the 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 070454, Draft EIS--522 pages, Air Quality Technical Support Documents--146 pages, October 22, 2007
PY  - 2007
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/36351097?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-10-22&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MONTICELLO FIELD OFFICE, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36347338; 12989
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 draft 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 070453, Volume 1--366 pages and maps, Volume 2--671 pages, Volume 3--346 pages, October 22, 2007
PY  - 2007
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/36347338?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-10-22&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36343092; 12988
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection by avoiding impacts to cultural resource communities. Alternative III would emphasize the protection of cultural resource communities and sites and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, Alternative IV would emphasize the protection of cultural resource communities and sites and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), protection of cultural resource communities and sites and protection and enhancement of natural resources, while providing for resource use and development. Alternative V would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interp0ertive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be open for oil and bas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common reserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 169 miles o f road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed sand reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317.
JF  - EPA number: 070452, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, October 22, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-51
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Museums
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Roads
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Ancients National Monument
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343092?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36342275; 12991
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 draft 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 abovementioned 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 070455, Draft EIS--2,312 pages and maps, Habitat Conservation Plan--1,878 pages and maps, habitat conservation plan Implementing Agreement--19 pages, October 22, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Birds
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Community Development
KW  - Community Facilities
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Easements
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 404(b) Statements
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
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/36342275?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-10-22&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ENVIRONMENTAL WATER ACCOUNT, SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN DELTA REGION, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2004).
AN  - 36342678; 12977
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an environmental water account (EWA) for the Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta Region of California is proposed. The delta region provides water to the majority of California's agriculture and to urban and industrial communities. The delta also provides habitat for numerous plant, animal, and fish species, including several endangered species. This dual role places the region at the center of an ongoing conflict between environmental and water supply interests. Within the delta, pumping plants operated by the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP) move water from the delta to a system of canals and reservoirs for use by agricultural interests, communities, and wildlife refuges in the Central Valley, the Bay Area, and southern California, and along the central coast. Pumping water from the delta alters normal flow patterns and can threaten the recovery of endangered and threatened fish species unless the projection of those species is adopted as an operations parameter. Reduction of delta pumping for protection and recovery of fish habitat can, however, interrupt water supply deliveries, thereby reducing the reliability of California's water supply. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a collaborative effort of 23 federal and state agencies seeking to resolve these conflicts. Rivers affecting water resources associated with the delta include the American, Merced, Feather, Yuba, Sacramento, and San Joaquin rivers. The EWA would consist of two primary elements: the facilitation of fish population recovery through water acquisition and management and the use of the acquired water to replace water deliveries (or supplies) interrupted by changes in the SWP/CVP operations. The final EIS of January 2004 considered three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. The action alternatives would involve the acquisition of EWA assets via stored surface water, stored groundwater, groundwater substitution, and crop idling purchases. EWA asset management would be achieved through source shifting, groundwater storage, and borrowing of project water. The action alternatives would differ primarily in actions taken to protect fish and the quantities of assets acquired. The proposed action would adopt a flexible interpretation of the CALFED directives, incorporating functionally equivalent purchases and actions within the framework of the directives. EWA agencies would adjust purchases of water to respond to differing hydrologic conditions and to take advantage of water acquisition/storage possibilities throughout the CVP and SWP service areas. This draft supplement to the final EIS presents no substantial changes in the nature of the project. However, the original implementation timeframe may be extended by up to four years. Moreover, several years have passed since the final EIS and the existing regulatory and environmental settings differ from those in 2004. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. The proposed action would allow EWA agencies to acquire up to 600,000 acre-feet of water assets to address pump reductions and other fish conservation measures and to compensate the CVP/SWP for water otherwise lost due to such measures. EWA agencies would typically acquire only 200,000 to 300,000 acre-feet annually, except in years with extreme fish conservation needs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The EWA, which is provided for under the CALFED Programmatic EIS/Environmental Impact Report Record of Decision, would assist in fish population recovery for at-risk native fish species and increase water supply reliability by reducing uncertainty associated with fish recovery actions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Water withdrawals, storage, and releases would affect surface water supply and management regimes, water quality, groundwater levels and groundwater quality, wind-born soil losses, air quality due to pump operations, fisheries and aquatic ecosystems, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, regional agricultural economics, agricultural land use, agricultural social values, recreational resources, flood control capacities, hydropower production, cultural resource sites, visual aesthetics, groundwater that constitutes Indian Trust Assets. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 04-0110D, Volume 28, Number 1 and 04-0357F, Volume 28, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 070441, 303 pages, CD-ROM, October 18, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Water
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Canals
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Sacramento River
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Yuba River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342678?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-10-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENVIRONMENTAL+WATER+ACCOUNT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+REGION%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2004%29.&rft.title=ENVIRONMENTAL+WATER+ACCOUNT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+REGION%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 18, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36342456; 12985
AB  - PURPOSE: Extension of the current open pit phosphate mining operations of the Smoky Canyon Mine of Caribou County, Idaho is proposed by the mine's operator, J.R. Simplot Company. The mine would be extended into two federal phosphate leases (Manning Creek No. I-27512 and Deer Creek No. I-01441, known, respectively as the Panel F and Panel G lease areas). The leases are administered by the Bureau of Land Management, while the surfaces of the leases are managed by the U.S. Forest Service as part of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. If approved, mining would begin in Panel F in 2007-2008 at the same time mining was completed in the existing Panel B. The proposed mining would commence in Panel F with mining being initiated in Panel G a few years later. All mining and reclamation activities would be completed over a period of approximately 16 years to ensure reclamation meets federal requirements. The mining activities would include construction of a new haul/access road extending south from Panel E across South Fork Sage Creek to the Manning Lease. Open-pit mining operations would commence within this lease and would generally proceed from north to south in Panel F. Overburden removed from the north end of Panel F would initially be hauled north to complete backfilling of 29 acres in Panel E; overburden would also be placed in a 38-acre external overburden fill. The rest of the overburden would be used as backfill in the Panel F open pit. A total of 138 acres of the southern-most part of Panel F would be located in a lease modification to be added to Lease I-27512 and the northern-most two acres of the open pit would be located on another proposed lease modification to the same lease. After several years of mining in Panel F, a haul access road and power line would be built to connect Panels F and G. A 100-gallon-per-minute water supply well would be drilled at Panel G. Initial overburden from the open pit at Panel G would be placed in a 74-are overburden fill southwest of the pit and a 64-acre external overburden fill located east of the pit. The rest of the overburden would be sued as a pit backfill. In addition to the proposed action, seven mining alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would allow both lease modifications, prohibit placement of seleniferous overburden external to the pit backfills, provide for placement of an infiltration barrier cap over all areas of seleniferous overburden disposal, location of the power line for panels F and G along the selected haul/access road corridors; and use of the existing East Haul Access road to transport personnel and materials into Panel G and for hauling phosphate ore from the panel to the existing Smoky Canyon mill. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the Simplot mining operations would continue economically viable development of the phosphate resources within the federal mineral leases at the site and to supply phosphate ore to Simplot's fertilizer plant. Mining would remove barriers to aquifer recharge in the panel areas. Mining would significantly boost, or at least maintain, employment in the area and otherwise boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance from all operations would cover 1,340 acres, including: for Panel F, 435 acres of pits, 67 acres of roads, 38 acres of external overburden, and 52 acres of other disturbance such as settling ponds and ditches, topsoil stockpiles, and a power line; and, for Panel G, 328 acres of pits, 217 acres of roads, 138 acres of external overburden fills, and 65 acres of other disturbance such as those for Panel F. Vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for big game and migratory birds, would be destroyed and erosion in the immediate area would be exacerbated. Approximately 475 feet of perennial stream channel, 21,030 feet of intermittent stream channel, and 65 acres of aquatic influence zones would be disturbed. Solute concentrations in groundwater would increase in the area, degrading water quality somewhat. Historically significant livestock grazing and recreational uses on affected lands would be eliminated. Approximately 1,040 acres within the Sage Creek Roadless Area and 60 acres within the Meade Peak Roadless Area would be disturbed by mining and road construction. Two arborglyph sites and a historic cabin would be affected by mining activities. Small portions of wetland areas would be displaced. Treaty rights of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe would be abridged due to road construction and mining. Air pollutant emissions, primarily exhaust and dust, would amount to 8,422 tons over the project life. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0035D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 070449, Volume I--999 pages, Volume II--1,207 pages and maps, October 18, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Fertilizers
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Caribou-Targhee National Forest
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342456?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-10-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMOKY+CANYON+MINE%2C+PANELS+F+%26+G%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=SMOKY+CANYON+MINE%2C+PANELS+F+%26+G%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 18, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALA KAHAKAI NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL, HAWAII.
AN  - 36345952; 12973
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a comprehensive management plan for the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail (NHT) of Hawaii is proposed. The NHT was added to the National Trails System on November 13, 2000. The legislation authorizing the Ala Kahakai NHT identifies an approximately 175-mile portion of prehistoric "ala loa" (long trail) and other trails on or parallel to the seacoast extending from Upolu Point on the north tip of Hawaii Island down the west coast of the island around South Point to the east boundary of the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. The Ala Kahakai NHT combines surviving elements of the ancient "ala loa" with segments of later "alanui aupuni", which were developed on or parallel to the traditional routes, as well as more recent pathways and roads that created links between the historic segments, Federal ownership of the NHT is limited to the trail alignment within the four national parks it links: Pu'ukohola National Historic Site, Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park (NHP), Pu'uhonua o Honaunau NHP, and Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Key planning issues identified during scoping include those related to trail administration and operations, changes to the historic setting of the trail, th3 vulnerability of cultural and natural features to human and natural encroachment and damage, protection of Native Hawaiian cultural and spiritual values, concerns over trespassing and the cost of trail maintenance and protection by landowners, and undesirable trail user behavior. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would maintain the NHT as a continuous linear trail, while recognizing the existence and importance of multiple trail alignments in traditional land use and stewardship in Hawaii by using the authority of the National Trails System Act of 1968 for connecting and side trails. All parallel ancient and historic trails lateral to the shoreline within the Ala Kahakai NHT corridor on public land would be recognized as significant rather than recognizing only a single trail. These alignments would include inland portions of the "ala loa" and other historic trails that run parallel to the shoreline and would be connected to ancient historic "mauka-makai" (mountain to sea) trails that traditionally would have been part of the "ahupua'a" system. Including "mauka-makai" trails could provide opportunities for loop trail experiences. These multiple trail alignments would occur only on public lands, including federal and state-owned lands, unless a private owner expressed an interest in recognizing more than a single linear Ala Kahakai NHT. Canoe landings that reflect the traditional uses of canoes in long-distance travel would be established where feasible. Day hiking and overnight camping would be supported via signs and markers and the development of trailheads and primitive campsites. Prehistoric and historic archaeological and traditional sites and their surrounding habitat would be preserved and interpreted. First cost of implementing the preferred alternative over a 15-year period is estimated to range from $3.2 million to $5.0 million, of which the federal government would fund $1.3 million to $2.5 million. Annual operating costs are estimated to range from $702,000 to 887,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred management alternative would reflect the public's vision, developed during the review of the alternatives, for the administration and management of the trail. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Installation of route markers and interpretive exhibits, limited trail construction activities, and facility development associated with the provision of trailheads would result in the destruction of vegetation and the disturbance of soil and the associated wildlife habitat and the degradation of visual aesthetics in the immediate area of the resulting facilities. Increased visitor use of the trail could result in significant soil compaction along portion s of the trail that are not surfaced by lava or sand, which are the chief trail surface constituents. LEGAL MANDATES: Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Act of 2000, National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and National Trail System Act of 1968 (P.L. 80-543).
JF  - EPA number: 070437, 342 pages, October 16, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail
KW  - Hawaii
KW  - Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
KW  - Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park
KW  - Pu'ukohola National Historic Site
KW  - Pu'uhonua Honaunau National Historical Park
KW  - Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Act of 2000, Program Authorization
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - National Trail System Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36345952?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-10-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALA+KAHAKAI+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=ALA+KAHAKAI+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Kaliua-Kona, Hawaii; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 16, 2007
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  - 36347182; 12971
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. 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. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative N), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 070435, Volume I--366 pages and maps, Volume II-502 pages and maps, Appendices--277 pages and maps, October 9, 2007
PY  - 2007
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/36347182?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RICHFIELD+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GARFIELD%2C+PIUTE%2C+SANPETE%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WAYNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=RICHFIELD+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GARFIELD%2C+PIUTE%2C+SANPETE%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WAYNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Richfield, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KANAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, KANE AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36347253; 12955
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 draft 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 070419, Volume 1--545 pages, Volume 2--401 pages, October 3, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/UT/PL-07-009-1610
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/36347253?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-10-03&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 3, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TOQUOP ENERGY PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36343638; 12957
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 750-megawatt (MW) coal-fired electrical power generation facility and a 31-mile rail line in Lincoln and Clark counties, Nevada are proposed. The electric generation facility, to be known as the Toquop Energy Project and situated in Lincoln County, would use a site permitted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 2003 for construction and operation of a 1,1000-MW natural-gas-fired power plant and associated facilities. Since 2003, the price of natural gas has increased substantially and natural-gas prices are projected to remain unstable due to increasing demand coupled with higher exploration and development costs. This, together with the emergence of clean coal technology that enables new coal-fired plants to perform with substantially improved efficiency and reduced emissions, has caused the applicant, Toquop Energy Company, LLC, to reconsider the original proposal in favor of a proposal forwarding the provision of coal-fired electrical generation. The major differences distinguishing the two proposals, other than the fuel types, consist of the reduced generation capacity, the need for a greater surface footprint to accommodate the storage and handling of coal, and the need for a rail line to transport coal to the site. The project would be located on 640 acres of public land currently managed by the BLM's Ely Field Office. The site lies in southern Lincoln County, 12 miles northwest of Mesquite and 50 miles south-southeast of Caliente. The rail line would depart from the existing Union Pacific Rai8lroad line and cross 31 miles of BLM land on it route to the power plant site. The power plant block would occupy 261 acres, the ash disposal area 150 acres, and the topsoil storage areas 64 acres; 165 acres within the site would be left untouched. Cooling and service water for the plant would be provided from either the Tule Desert or Clover Valley well field via a pipeline. The plant would be constructed over a four-year period and have an operating life of 50 years, after which the plant site and associated rail, road, and pipeline rights-of-way would be reclaimed. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the abovementioned already permitted 1,100-MW gas-fired power plant would constructed, as well as several rail line alignment alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The power plant would help the applicant meet the increasing demand for electrical power in the service area, which includes Arizona, New Mexico, and southern Nevada, where demand is expected to rise by 6,340 MW by 2012. Construction of the plant would employ 800 workers, and plant operation would employ 110 workers. Lincoln County would collect $14 million during the plant construction phase and $10 million per year of operation in taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plant site developments for the proposed coal-fired power plant would displace 475 acres of vegetation and soils, and the rail, access road, and water pipeline rights-of-way would displace a further 356 acres, 138 acres, and 45 acres, respectively. Approximately 356 acres of grazing land would be affected due to loss of fencing, and pipeline construction would disturb 90 acres of rangeland. Cooling system requirements for the proposed plant would consume 2,500 acre-feet of water annually, 400 more acre-feet that would be required by the gas-fired plant. Operation of the plant would consume up to 3.1 million tons of coal per year. Construction of the plant would require removal of resources associated with nine archaeological sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The site access road would traverse a portion of the Mormon Mesa Area of Critical Environmental Concern. the plant would be visible from Interstate 15 and, possibly, from the Mormon Mountains Wilderness. The plant would emit significant levels of numerous criteria air pollutants LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070421, 393 pages, October 3, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-52
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Coal
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Reclamation Plans
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Ely Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343638?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-10-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TOQUOP+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TOQUOP+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 3, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MOXA ARCH AREA INFILL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN, UINTA, SWEETWATER COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 36341609; 12952
AB  - PURPOSE: The drilling of natural gas wells and production and transportation of gas in the Moxa Arch Area (MAA) of Lincoln, Uinta, and Sweetwater counties, Wyoming are proposed. The 475,808-acre MAA, which contains 260,284 acres in federal surface ownership and 5,216 acres of split-estate land, lies west of the town of Green River, east of Lyman and Opal, and south of the Green River and Fontenelle Reservoir. Currently, the area supports 1,400 natural gas wells as well as the associated roads, pipelines, compressor stations, treatment facilities, and other associated infrastructure. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts to grazing and compensation of livestock permittees for loss of forage; the potential for noxious weeds to spread through the area, impacting rangeland health and decreasing native species diversity; impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat; potential changes in hunting and other recreational activities in the area; impacts to water quality and riparian habitat; impacts to wildlife habitat and visual and cultural resources due to increased surface disturbance and activity; increased emission of air pollutants, including malodorous pollutants and smoke; increases in vehicular traffic in the area; and socioeconomic impacts. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action would provide for infill drilling of up to 1,861 new wells into the Dakota and Frontier formations and the installation and operation of ancillary facilities, including roads, gas pipelines, and separation, dehydration, metering, and fluid storage facilities. Approximately 1,226 wells would be drilled in the MAA's core area and another 635 wells would be drilled in the flank area of the MAA. Well densities would range from four to 12 wells per section in the core area and would be fixed at two wells per section in the flank area. The precise locations of the wells are not determined at this time. Alternative B would represent full development of the MAA, resulting in the drilling of up to 5,165 additional wells across all lands in the MAA over a 25-year period. Alternative C would provide for up to 16 well pads per square mile in the core of the MAA and up to four well pads per square mile within the flank of the area; a maximum of 5,165 wells could be drilled over 25 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Moxa Arch Natural Gas Development Project would allow legally interested parties exercise their rights to drill for, extract, transport, and market natural gas under valid existing oil and gas leases granted by the Bureau of Land Management, the state of Wyoming, and private owners. By increasing the daily gas delivery volume from the MAA, the proposed action would help meet the growing national demand for clean energy sources. The proposed action and No action alternatives would respectively recover 60 percent and 20 percent of the available natural gas reserves, while alternatives B and C would recover 85 percent of the recoverable gas resource. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Drilling, gas extraction, pipeline construction and operation, and ancillary activities would result in the disturbance of 18,650 acres of soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat over a 10-year drilling period. After the completion of interim reclamation, approximately 5,997 acres would be subject to long-term disturbance; the average life expectancy of an individual well is 40 years. Habitat for endangered fish, mammals, and plants would be affected. Recreational use of the area would be largely eliminated during development and operation of the wells and pipelines, and visual aesthetics in the area would be severely degraded. Access to forage for grazing in the affected area would be severely curtailed or eliminated. Topography and surface geology would be altered significantly. Increased surface runoff and depletion of groundwater in some areas would occur under any alternative. 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), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980.
JF  - EPA number: 070416, Volume 1--298 pages, Volume 2--229 pages, October 2, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-07/034+1310
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Odor Thresholds
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Reclamation Plans
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36341609?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-10-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOXA+ARCH+AREA+INFILL+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN%2C+UINTA%2C+SWEETWATER+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=MOXA+ARCH+AREA+INFILL+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN%2C+UINTA%2C+SWEETWATER+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 2, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CORTEZ HILLS EXPANSION PROJECT, LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 6]
T2  - CORTEZ HILLS EXPANSION PROJECT, LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 756825029; 13618-080392_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of mineral rights access by the Bureau of Land Management to Cortez Gold Mines (CGM) is proposed to allow for the development and operation of new facilities associated with the expansion of an existing open-pit gold mining and processing operation at the CGM Operations Area in Crescent Valley, Lander and Eureka counties, Nevada. The operations area is located in north-central Nevada approximately 24 miles south of Beowawe. Existing CGM mining and processing facilities are located in three main areas in the operations area, namely, the Pipeline Complex, Cortez Complex, and Gold Acres Complex. The proposed action would include development of new mining facilities in a newly opened area to be known as the Cortez Hills Complex, including development if a new open-pit mine, underground mining, three new waste rock facilities, a new heap leach pad, and related roads, transmission lines, and other ancillary facilities. The proposed action would incorporate continued use of the three existing complexes and expansion of existing pits and waste rock facilities in the Pipeline and Cortez complexes. The primary method of processing the low-grade ore to be mined would be heap leaching. The proposed action would consolidate CGM's three existing mine plans and modify the boundaries of the boundaries of two existing exploration project (Pipeline/South Pipeline/Gold Acres Exploration Project and Horse Canyon/Cortez Unified Exploration Project) into a new mine plan of operations that would be known as the Cortez Gold Mines Plan of Operation. If approved, the anticipated life of the mine would be 10 years, followed by another three years for ongoing ore processing, site closure, and site reclamation. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers Alternative locations of the heap leach and waste rock site, the use of underground mining, rather than open-pit mining, to remove gold ore from the Cortez Hills Complex, Cortez Hills pit design alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. The preferred Alternative consists of the applicant's proposal with the revised Cortez Hills pit design for Cortez Hills Complex facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: BLM authorization of mineral rights access to the CGM operations area would allow the applicant lawful access to minerals owned by the applicant. Gold mined and processed as a result of the project would contribute to the nation's holdings of this strategic precious metal. The proposed action would employ 300 construction workers and 150 operations workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the disturbance of 6,792 acres of vegetation and soils and the associate wildlife and aquatic habitat, including 6,571 acres of public lands administered by the BLM and 221 acres of private land owned by CGM. Approximately 1,612 acres of pinon-juniper woodland would be displaced, with 817 acres of that woodland permanently lost. Riparian and wetland vegetation associated with 22 springs or seeps, encompassing 3.5 acres, and one perennial stream reach (Mill Creek) would experience long-term dewatering due to groundwater drawdown associate with mining operations. Special status species to be affected could include bats, pygmy rabbits, golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, prairie falcons, mountain quails, long-eared owls. Displacement of grazing land would remove 178 animal unit months of forage for domestic livestock. Expansion of CGM mining and processing operations could result in the loss of sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and Native American traditional values would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0443D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080392, Volume I--252 pages and maps, Volume II--571 pages and maps, Volume III--677 pages, September 27, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/BM/ES-07/007+1793
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Crushing and Grinding
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Battle Mountain Resource Management Area
KW  - Nevada
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825029?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORTEZ+HILLS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CORTEZ+HILLS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 27, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CORTEZ HILLS EXPANSION PROJECT, LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 6]
T2  - CORTEZ HILLS EXPANSION PROJECT, LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 756824961; 13618-080392_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of mineral rights access by the Bureau of Land Management to Cortez Gold Mines (CGM) is proposed to allow for the development and operation of new facilities associated with the expansion of an existing open-pit gold mining and processing operation at the CGM Operations Area in Crescent Valley, Lander and Eureka counties, Nevada. The operations area is located in north-central Nevada approximately 24 miles south of Beowawe. Existing CGM mining and processing facilities are located in three main areas in the operations area, namely, the Pipeline Complex, Cortez Complex, and Gold Acres Complex. The proposed action would include development of new mining facilities in a newly opened area to be known as the Cortez Hills Complex, including development if a new open-pit mine, underground mining, three new waste rock facilities, a new heap leach pad, and related roads, transmission lines, and other ancillary facilities. The proposed action would incorporate continued use of the three existing complexes and expansion of existing pits and waste rock facilities in the Pipeline and Cortez complexes. The primary method of processing the low-grade ore to be mined would be heap leaching. The proposed action would consolidate CGM's three existing mine plans and modify the boundaries of the boundaries of two existing exploration project (Pipeline/South Pipeline/Gold Acres Exploration Project and Horse Canyon/Cortez Unified Exploration Project) into a new mine plan of operations that would be known as the Cortez Gold Mines Plan of Operation. If approved, the anticipated life of the mine would be 10 years, followed by another three years for ongoing ore processing, site closure, and site reclamation. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers Alternative locations of the heap leach and waste rock site, the use of underground mining, rather than open-pit mining, to remove gold ore from the Cortez Hills Complex, Cortez Hills pit design alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. The preferred Alternative consists of the applicant's proposal with the revised Cortez Hills pit design for Cortez Hills Complex facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: BLM authorization of mineral rights access to the CGM operations area would allow the applicant lawful access to minerals owned by the applicant. Gold mined and processed as a result of the project would contribute to the nation's holdings of this strategic precious metal. The proposed action would employ 300 construction workers and 150 operations workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the disturbance of 6,792 acres of vegetation and soils and the associate wildlife and aquatic habitat, including 6,571 acres of public lands administered by the BLM and 221 acres of private land owned by CGM. Approximately 1,612 acres of pinon-juniper woodland would be displaced, with 817 acres of that woodland permanently lost. Riparian and wetland vegetation associated with 22 springs or seeps, encompassing 3.5 acres, and one perennial stream reach (Mill Creek) would experience long-term dewatering due to groundwater drawdown associate with mining operations. Special status species to be affected could include bats, pygmy rabbits, golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, prairie falcons, mountain quails, long-eared owls. Displacement of grazing land would remove 178 animal unit months of forage for domestic livestock. Expansion of CGM mining and processing operations could result in the loss of sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and Native American traditional values would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0443D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080392, Volume I--252 pages and maps, Volume II--571 pages and maps, Volume III--677 pages, September 27, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 5
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/BM/ES-07/007+1793
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Crushing and Grinding
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Battle Mountain Resource Management Area
KW  - Nevada
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824961?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORTEZ+HILLS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CORTEZ+HILLS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 27, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CORTEZ HILLS EXPANSION PROJECT, LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 6]
T2  - CORTEZ HILLS EXPANSION PROJECT, LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 756824954; 13618-080392_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of mineral rights access by the Bureau of Land Management to Cortez Gold Mines (CGM) is proposed to allow for the development and operation of new facilities associated with the expansion of an existing open-pit gold mining and processing operation at the CGM Operations Area in Crescent Valley, Lander and Eureka counties, Nevada. The operations area is located in north-central Nevada approximately 24 miles south of Beowawe. Existing CGM mining and processing facilities are located in three main areas in the operations area, namely, the Pipeline Complex, Cortez Complex, and Gold Acres Complex. The proposed action would include development of new mining facilities in a newly opened area to be known as the Cortez Hills Complex, including development if a new open-pit mine, underground mining, three new waste rock facilities, a new heap leach pad, and related roads, transmission lines, and other ancillary facilities. The proposed action would incorporate continued use of the three existing complexes and expansion of existing pits and waste rock facilities in the Pipeline and Cortez complexes. The primary method of processing the low-grade ore to be mined would be heap leaching. The proposed action would consolidate CGM's three existing mine plans and modify the boundaries of the boundaries of two existing exploration project (Pipeline/South Pipeline/Gold Acres Exploration Project and Horse Canyon/Cortez Unified Exploration Project) into a new mine plan of operations that would be known as the Cortez Gold Mines Plan of Operation. If approved, the anticipated life of the mine would be 10 years, followed by another three years for ongoing ore processing, site closure, and site reclamation. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers Alternative locations of the heap leach and waste rock site, the use of underground mining, rather than open-pit mining, to remove gold ore from the Cortez Hills Complex, Cortez Hills pit design alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. The preferred Alternative consists of the applicant's proposal with the revised Cortez Hills pit design for Cortez Hills Complex facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: BLM authorization of mineral rights access to the CGM operations area would allow the applicant lawful access to minerals owned by the applicant. Gold mined and processed as a result of the project would contribute to the nation's holdings of this strategic precious metal. The proposed action would employ 300 construction workers and 150 operations workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the disturbance of 6,792 acres of vegetation and soils and the associate wildlife and aquatic habitat, including 6,571 acres of public lands administered by the BLM and 221 acres of private land owned by CGM. Approximately 1,612 acres of pinon-juniper woodland would be displaced, with 817 acres of that woodland permanently lost. Riparian and wetland vegetation associated with 22 springs or seeps, encompassing 3.5 acres, and one perennial stream reach (Mill Creek) would experience long-term dewatering due to groundwater drawdown associate with mining operations. Special status species to be affected could include bats, pygmy rabbits, golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, prairie falcons, mountain quails, long-eared owls. Displacement of grazing land would remove 178 animal unit months of forage for domestic livestock. Expansion of CGM mining and processing operations could result in the loss of sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and Native American traditional values would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0443D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080392, Volume I--252 pages and maps, Volume II--571 pages and maps, Volume III--677 pages, September 27, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 4
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/BM/ES-07/007+1793
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Crushing and Grinding
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Battle Mountain Resource Management Area
KW  - Nevada
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824954?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORTEZ+HILLS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CORTEZ+HILLS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 27, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CORTEZ HILLS EXPANSION PROJECT, LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 6]
T2  - CORTEZ HILLS EXPANSION PROJECT, LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 756824945; 13618-080392_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of mineral rights access by the Bureau of Land Management to Cortez Gold Mines (CGM) is proposed to allow for the development and operation of new facilities associated with the expansion of an existing open-pit gold mining and processing operation at the CGM Operations Area in Crescent Valley, Lander and Eureka counties, Nevada. The operations area is located in north-central Nevada approximately 24 miles south of Beowawe. Existing CGM mining and processing facilities are located in three main areas in the operations area, namely, the Pipeline Complex, Cortez Complex, and Gold Acres Complex. The proposed action would include development of new mining facilities in a newly opened area to be known as the Cortez Hills Complex, including development if a new open-pit mine, underground mining, three new waste rock facilities, a new heap leach pad, and related roads, transmission lines, and other ancillary facilities. The proposed action would incorporate continued use of the three existing complexes and expansion of existing pits and waste rock facilities in the Pipeline and Cortez complexes. The primary method of processing the low-grade ore to be mined would be heap leaching. The proposed action would consolidate CGM's three existing mine plans and modify the boundaries of the boundaries of two existing exploration project (Pipeline/South Pipeline/Gold Acres Exploration Project and Horse Canyon/Cortez Unified Exploration Project) into a new mine plan of operations that would be known as the Cortez Gold Mines Plan of Operation. If approved, the anticipated life of the mine would be 10 years, followed by another three years for ongoing ore processing, site closure, and site reclamation. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers Alternative locations of the heap leach and waste rock site, the use of underground mining, rather than open-pit mining, to remove gold ore from the Cortez Hills Complex, Cortez Hills pit design alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. The preferred Alternative consists of the applicant's proposal with the revised Cortez Hills pit design for Cortez Hills Complex facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: BLM authorization of mineral rights access to the CGM operations area would allow the applicant lawful access to minerals owned by the applicant. Gold mined and processed as a result of the project would contribute to the nation's holdings of this strategic precious metal. The proposed action would employ 300 construction workers and 150 operations workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the disturbance of 6,792 acres of vegetation and soils and the associate wildlife and aquatic habitat, including 6,571 acres of public lands administered by the BLM and 221 acres of private land owned by CGM. Approximately 1,612 acres of pinon-juniper woodland would be displaced, with 817 acres of that woodland permanently lost. Riparian and wetland vegetation associated with 22 springs or seeps, encompassing 3.5 acres, and one perennial stream reach (Mill Creek) would experience long-term dewatering due to groundwater drawdown associate with mining operations. Special status species to be affected could include bats, pygmy rabbits, golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, prairie falcons, mountain quails, long-eared owls. Displacement of grazing land would remove 178 animal unit months of forage for domestic livestock. Expansion of CGM mining and processing operations could result in the loss of sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and Native American traditional values would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0443D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080392, Volume I--252 pages and maps, Volume II--571 pages and maps, Volume III--677 pages, September 27, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/BM/ES-07/007+1793
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Crushing and Grinding
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Battle Mountain Resource Management Area
KW  - Nevada
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824945?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORTEZ+HILLS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CORTEZ+HILLS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 27, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CORTEZ HILLS EXPANSION PROJECT, LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 6]
T2  - CORTEZ HILLS EXPANSION PROJECT, LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 756824927; 13618-080392_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of mineral rights access by the Bureau of Land Management to Cortez Gold Mines (CGM) is proposed to allow for the development and operation of new facilities associated with the expansion of an existing open-pit gold mining and processing operation at the CGM Operations Area in Crescent Valley, Lander and Eureka counties, Nevada. The operations area is located in north-central Nevada approximately 24 miles south of Beowawe. Existing CGM mining and processing facilities are located in three main areas in the operations area, namely, the Pipeline Complex, Cortez Complex, and Gold Acres Complex. The proposed action would include development of new mining facilities in a newly opened area to be known as the Cortez Hills Complex, including development if a new open-pit mine, underground mining, three new waste rock facilities, a new heap leach pad, and related roads, transmission lines, and other ancillary facilities. The proposed action would incorporate continued use of the three existing complexes and expansion of existing pits and waste rock facilities in the Pipeline and Cortez complexes. The primary method of processing the low-grade ore to be mined would be heap leaching. The proposed action would consolidate CGM's three existing mine plans and modify the boundaries of the boundaries of two existing exploration project (Pipeline/South Pipeline/Gold Acres Exploration Project and Horse Canyon/Cortez Unified Exploration Project) into a new mine plan of operations that would be known as the Cortez Gold Mines Plan of Operation. If approved, the anticipated life of the mine would be 10 years, followed by another three years for ongoing ore processing, site closure, and site reclamation. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers Alternative locations of the heap leach and waste rock site, the use of underground mining, rather than open-pit mining, to remove gold ore from the Cortez Hills Complex, Cortez Hills pit design alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. The preferred Alternative consists of the applicant's proposal with the revised Cortez Hills pit design for Cortez Hills Complex facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: BLM authorization of mineral rights access to the CGM operations area would allow the applicant lawful access to minerals owned by the applicant. Gold mined and processed as a result of the project would contribute to the nation's holdings of this strategic precious metal. The proposed action would employ 300 construction workers and 150 operations workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the disturbance of 6,792 acres of vegetation and soils and the associate wildlife and aquatic habitat, including 6,571 acres of public lands administered by the BLM and 221 acres of private land owned by CGM. Approximately 1,612 acres of pinon-juniper woodland would be displaced, with 817 acres of that woodland permanently lost. Riparian and wetland vegetation associated with 22 springs or seeps, encompassing 3.5 acres, and one perennial stream reach (Mill Creek) would experience long-term dewatering due to groundwater drawdown associate with mining operations. Special status species to be affected could include bats, pygmy rabbits, golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, prairie falcons, mountain quails, long-eared owls. Displacement of grazing land would remove 178 animal unit months of forage for domestic livestock. Expansion of CGM mining and processing operations could result in the loss of sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and Native American traditional values would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0443D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080392, Volume I--252 pages and maps, Volume II--571 pages and maps, Volume III--677 pages, September 27, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 3
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/BM/ES-07/007+1793
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Crushing and Grinding
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Battle Mountain Resource Management Area
KW  - Nevada
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824927?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORTEZ+HILLS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CORTEZ+HILLS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 27, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CORTEZ HILLS EXPANSION PROJECT, LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 6]
T2  - CORTEZ HILLS EXPANSION PROJECT, LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 756824667; 13618-080392_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of mineral rights access by the Bureau of Land Management to Cortez Gold Mines (CGM) is proposed to allow for the development and operation of new facilities associated with the expansion of an existing open-pit gold mining and processing operation at the CGM Operations Area in Crescent Valley, Lander and Eureka counties, Nevada. The operations area is located in north-central Nevada approximately 24 miles south of Beowawe. Existing CGM mining and processing facilities are located in three main areas in the operations area, namely, the Pipeline Complex, Cortez Complex, and Gold Acres Complex. The proposed action would include development of new mining facilities in a newly opened area to be known as the Cortez Hills Complex, including development if a new open-pit mine, underground mining, three new waste rock facilities, a new heap leach pad, and related roads, transmission lines, and other ancillary facilities. The proposed action would incorporate continued use of the three existing complexes and expansion of existing pits and waste rock facilities in the Pipeline and Cortez complexes. The primary method of processing the low-grade ore to be mined would be heap leaching. The proposed action would consolidate CGM's three existing mine plans and modify the boundaries of the boundaries of two existing exploration project (Pipeline/South Pipeline/Gold Acres Exploration Project and Horse Canyon/Cortez Unified Exploration Project) into a new mine plan of operations that would be known as the Cortez Gold Mines Plan of Operation. If approved, the anticipated life of the mine would be 10 years, followed by another three years for ongoing ore processing, site closure, and site reclamation. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers Alternative locations of the heap leach and waste rock site, the use of underground mining, rather than open-pit mining, to remove gold ore from the Cortez Hills Complex, Cortez Hills pit design alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. The preferred Alternative consists of the applicant's proposal with the revised Cortez Hills pit design for Cortez Hills Complex facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: BLM authorization of mineral rights access to the CGM operations area would allow the applicant lawful access to minerals owned by the applicant. Gold mined and processed as a result of the project would contribute to the nation's holdings of this strategic precious metal. The proposed action would employ 300 construction workers and 150 operations workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the disturbance of 6,792 acres of vegetation and soils and the associate wildlife and aquatic habitat, including 6,571 acres of public lands administered by the BLM and 221 acres of private land owned by CGM. Approximately 1,612 acres of pinon-juniper woodland would be displaced, with 817 acres of that woodland permanently lost. Riparian and wetland vegetation associated with 22 springs or seeps, encompassing 3.5 acres, and one perennial stream reach (Mill Creek) would experience long-term dewatering due to groundwater drawdown associate with mining operations. Special status species to be affected could include bats, pygmy rabbits, golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, prairie falcons, mountain quails, long-eared owls. Displacement of grazing land would remove 178 animal unit months of forage for domestic livestock. Expansion of CGM mining and processing operations could result in the loss of sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and Native American traditional values would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0443D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080392, Volume I--252 pages and maps, Volume II--571 pages and maps, Volume III--677 pages, September 27, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 6
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/BM/ES-07/007+1793
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Crushing and Grinding
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Battle Mountain Resource Management Area
KW  - Nevada
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824667?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORTEZ+HILLS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CORTEZ+HILLS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 27, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CORTEZ HILLS EXPANSION PROJECT, LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36343827; 12946
AB  - PURPOSE: The authorization of mineral rights access by the Bureau of Land Management to Cortez Gold Mines (CAM) is proposed to allow for the development and operation of new facilities associated with the expansion of an existing open-pit gold mining and processing operation at the CGM Operations Area in Crescent Valley, Lander and Eureka counties, Nevada. The operations area is located in north-central Nevada approximately 24 miles south of Beowawe. Existing CGM mining and processing facilities are located in three main areas in the operations area, namely, the Pipeline Complex, Cortez Complex, and Gold Acres Complex. The proposed action would include development of new mining facilities in a newly opened area to be known as the Cortez Hills Complex, including development if a new open-pit mine, underground mining, three new waste rock facilities, a new heap leach pad, and related roads, transmission lines, and other ancillary facilities. The proposed action would incorporate continued use of the three existing complexes and expansion of existing pits and waste rock facilities in the Pipeline and Cortez complexes. The primary method of processing the low-grade ore to be mined would be heap leaching. The proposed action would consolidate CGM's three existing mine plans and modify the boundaries of the boundaries of two existing exploration project (Pipeline/South Pipeline/Gold Acres Exploration Project and Horse Canyon/Cortez Unified Exploration Project) into a new mine plan of operations that would be known as the Cortez Gold Mines Plan of Operation. If approved, the anticipated life of the mine would be 10 years, followed by another three years for ongoing ore processing, site closure, and site reclamation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: BLM authorization of mineral rights access to the CGM operations area would allow the applicant lawful access to minerals owned by the applicant. Gold mined and processed as a result of the project would contribute to the nation's holdings of this strategic precious metal. The proposed action would employ 300 construction workers and 150 operations workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the disturbance of 6,792 acres of vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife and aquatic habitat, including 6,571 acres of public lands administered by the BLM and 221 acres of private land owned by CGM. Approximately 1,612 acres of pinon-juniper woodland would be displaced, with 817 acres of that woodland permanently lost. Riparian and wetland vegetation associated with 22 springs or seeps, encompassing 3.5 acres, and one perennial stream reach (Mill Creek) would experience long-term dewatering do to groundwater drawdown associated with mining operations. Special status species to be affected could include bats, pygmy rabbits, golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, prairie falcons, mountain quails, long-eared owls. Displacement of grazing land would remove 178 animal unit months of forage for domestic livestock. Expansion of CGM mining and processing operations could result in the loss of sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and Native American traditional values would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070410, Volume I--252 pages and maps, Volume II--521 pages and maps, September 27, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/BM/ES-07/007+1793
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Crushing and Grinding
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Battle Mountain Resource Management Area
KW  - Nevada
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343827?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORTEZ+HILLS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CORTEZ+HILLS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WINTER USE PLANS, YELLOWSTONE AND GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARKS, JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER JR MEMORIAL PARKWAY, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - WINTER USE PLANS, YELLOWSTONE AND GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARKS, JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER JR MEMORIAL PARKWAY, WYOMING.
AN  - 756824531; 12941-070405_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of a winter use management plan for Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks and the associated John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway in Wyoming is proposed. Issues have arisen concerning the type, amount, and character of historical winter access and recreation and their impact on park resources, values, and/or other visitors. Key issues identified during scoping include those related with socioeconomic conditions, health and human safety, wildlife habitat and wildlife disturbance, air quality, natural soundscapes, visitor access and circulation, and visitor experience. Seven alternative winter use management plans, including a No Action Alternative, which would close all routes to motorized oversnow recreation, are considered in this final EIS. Historic levels of snowmobile use would be allowed, but commercial guides would be required for snowmobilers. Snowmobile entry would be limited to 720 vehicles per day in Yellowstone National Park and 140 vehicle per day in Grand Teton National Park. Passenger limits would also be established and enforced. Snowcoaches would be required to meet best available technology standards, and there would be a daily limit on snowcoach trips. Sylvan Pass would be closed to through travel. Alternative 1 would put into place permanently the provisions of the temporary winter use plan established in August 2004. Alternative 2 would prohibit recreational snowmobiling in the parks in favor of snowcoach access. Alternative 3(A) would close much of Yellowstone to oversnow travel, leaving the South Entrance to Old Faithful route open. A Alternative 3(B), which is the No Action Alternative, closes all routes to motorized oversnow recreation. This would be the outcome of the current temporary plan should no new decision be made. The other four alternatives (Alternatives 4 through 7) would allow varying levels of snowmobile and snowcoach access to continue in the parks. Alternative 6 would provide for the plowing of roads in Yellowstone to allow wheeled-vehicle access from West Yellowstone and Mammoth to Old Faithful. Alternative 7, which is the preferred alternative, would reduce the daily number of snowmobiles from 720, as proposed in the draft EIS, to 540 in Yellowstone and 65 in Grand Teton and the Parkway to provide better protection for park soundscapes and other resources. In Yellowstone, all snowmobilers would be required to travel with a commercial guide and, in both park, most snowmobiles would be required to be equipped with the "best available technology". The number of snowcoaches allowed into Yellowstone each day would be limited to 83. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative plan would ensure that park visitors had a range of winter recreation opportunities appropriate to the national park setting and that these activities would not impair or irreparably harm park resources or values. Access to the park, which would be impossible for some without the use of motor vehicles would be available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Snowcoaches and, more so, snowmobiles would damage vegetation and the associated habitat and disturb wildlife. The use of snowmobiles, and to some extent snowcoaches, would be resented by recreationist would desire an undisturbed experience of winter solitude and naturalness. Even after the snowmobile and snowcoaches have passed through an area, the will have left telltale signs of their presence in tracks and, in some cases, churned up earth, marring the pristine visual aesthetics of the parks. Noise from snowmobiles, and less so from snowcoaches, can reach extremely high levels in the near-field. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.)
JF  - EPA number: 070405, Volume 1--440 pages, Volume 2--249 pages, September 24, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 07-42
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Highways
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Noise
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Grand Teton National Park
KW  - Yellowstone National Park
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824531?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINTER+USE+PLANS%2C+YELLOWSTONE+AND+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARKS%2C+JOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER+JR+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WINTER+USE+PLANS%2C+YELLOWSTONE+AND+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARKS%2C+JOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER+JR+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WINTER USE PLANS, YELLOWSTONE AND GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARKS, JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER JR MEMORIAL PARKWAY, WYOMING. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - WINTER USE PLANS, YELLOWSTONE AND GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARKS, JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER JR MEMORIAL PARKWAY, WYOMING.
AN  - 756824525; 12941-070405_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of a winter use management plan for Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks and the associated John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway in Wyoming is proposed. Issues have arisen concerning the type, amount, and character of historical winter access and recreation and their impact on park resources, values, and/or other visitors. Key issues identified during scoping include those related with socioeconomic conditions, health and human safety, wildlife habitat and wildlife disturbance, air quality, natural soundscapes, visitor access and circulation, and visitor experience. Seven alternative winter use management plans, including a No Action Alternative, which would close all routes to motorized oversnow recreation, are considered in this final EIS. Historic levels of snowmobile use would be allowed, but commercial guides would be required for snowmobilers. Snowmobile entry would be limited to 720 vehicles per day in Yellowstone National Park and 140 vehicle per day in Grand Teton National Park. Passenger limits would also be established and enforced. Snowcoaches would be required to meet best available technology standards, and there would be a daily limit on snowcoach trips. Sylvan Pass would be closed to through travel. Alternative 1 would put into place permanently the provisions of the temporary winter use plan established in August 2004. Alternative 2 would prohibit recreational snowmobiling in the parks in favor of snowcoach access. Alternative 3(A) would close much of Yellowstone to oversnow travel, leaving the South Entrance to Old Faithful route open. A Alternative 3(B), which is the No Action Alternative, closes all routes to motorized oversnow recreation. This would be the outcome of the current temporary plan should no new decision be made. The other four alternatives (Alternatives 4 through 7) would allow varying levels of snowmobile and snowcoach access to continue in the parks. Alternative 6 would provide for the plowing of roads in Yellowstone to allow wheeled-vehicle access from West Yellowstone and Mammoth to Old Faithful. Alternative 7, which is the preferred alternative, would reduce the daily number of snowmobiles from 720, as proposed in the draft EIS, to 540 in Yellowstone and 65 in Grand Teton and the Parkway to provide better protection for park soundscapes and other resources. In Yellowstone, all snowmobilers would be required to travel with a commercial guide and, in both park, most snowmobiles would be required to be equipped with the "best available technology". The number of snowcoaches allowed into Yellowstone each day would be limited to 83. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative plan would ensure that park visitors had a range of winter recreation opportunities appropriate to the national park setting and that these activities would not impair or irreparably harm park resources or values. Access to the park, which would be impossible for some without the use of motor vehicles would be available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Snowcoaches and, more so, snowmobiles would damage vegetation and the associated habitat and disturb wildlife. The use of snowmobiles, and to some extent snowcoaches, would be resented by recreationist would desire an undisturbed experience of winter solitude and naturalness. Even after the snowmobile and snowcoaches have passed through an area, the will have left telltale signs of their presence in tracks and, in some cases, churned up earth, marring the pristine visual aesthetics of the parks. Noise from snowmobiles, and less so from snowcoaches, can reach extremely high levels in the near-field. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.)
JF  - EPA number: 070405, Volume 1--440 pages, Volume 2--249 pages, September 24, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 07-42
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Highways
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Noise
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Grand Teton National Park
KW  - Yellowstone National Park
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824525?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINTER+USE+PLANS%2C+YELLOWSTONE+AND+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARKS%2C+JOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER+JR+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WINTER+USE+PLANS%2C+YELLOWSTONE+AND+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARKS%2C+JOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER+JR+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WINTER USE PLANS, YELLOWSTONE AND GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARKS, JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER JR MEMORIAL PARKWAY, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - WINTER USE PLANS, YELLOWSTONE AND GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARKS, JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER JR MEMORIAL PARKWAY, WYOMING.
AN  - 756824510; 12941-070405_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of a winter use management plan for Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks and the associated John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway in Wyoming is proposed. Issues have arisen concerning the type, amount, and character of historical winter access and recreation and their impact on park resources, values, and/or other visitors. Key issues identified during scoping include those related with socioeconomic conditions, health and human safety, wildlife habitat and wildlife disturbance, air quality, natural soundscapes, visitor access and circulation, and visitor experience. Seven alternative winter use management plans, including a No Action Alternative, which would close all routes to motorized oversnow recreation, are considered in this final EIS. Historic levels of snowmobile use would be allowed, but commercial guides would be required for snowmobilers. Snowmobile entry would be limited to 720 vehicles per day in Yellowstone National Park and 140 vehicle per day in Grand Teton National Park. Passenger limits would also be established and enforced. Snowcoaches would be required to meet best available technology standards, and there would be a daily limit on snowcoach trips. Sylvan Pass would be closed to through travel. Alternative 1 would put into place permanently the provisions of the temporary winter use plan established in August 2004. Alternative 2 would prohibit recreational snowmobiling in the parks in favor of snowcoach access. Alternative 3(A) would close much of Yellowstone to oversnow travel, leaving the South Entrance to Old Faithful route open. A Alternative 3(B), which is the No Action Alternative, closes all routes to motorized oversnow recreation. This would be the outcome of the current temporary plan should no new decision be made. The other four alternatives (Alternatives 4 through 7) would allow varying levels of snowmobile and snowcoach access to continue in the parks. Alternative 6 would provide for the plowing of roads in Yellowstone to allow wheeled-vehicle access from West Yellowstone and Mammoth to Old Faithful. Alternative 7, which is the preferred alternative, would reduce the daily number of snowmobiles from 720, as proposed in the draft EIS, to 540 in Yellowstone and 65 in Grand Teton and the Parkway to provide better protection for park soundscapes and other resources. In Yellowstone, all snowmobilers would be required to travel with a commercial guide and, in both park, most snowmobiles would be required to be equipped with the "best available technology". The number of snowcoaches allowed into Yellowstone each day would be limited to 83. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative plan would ensure that park visitors had a range of winter recreation opportunities appropriate to the national park setting and that these activities would not impair or irreparably harm park resources or values. Access to the park, which would be impossible for some without the use of motor vehicles would be available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Snowcoaches and, more so, snowmobiles would damage vegetation and the associated habitat and disturb wildlife. The use of snowmobiles, and to some extent snowcoaches, would be resented by recreationist would desire an undisturbed experience of winter solitude and naturalness. Even after the snowmobile and snowcoaches have passed through an area, the will have left telltale signs of their presence in tracks and, in some cases, churned up earth, marring the pristine visual aesthetics of the parks. Noise from snowmobiles, and less so from snowcoaches, can reach extremely high levels in the near-field. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.)
JF  - EPA number: 070405, Volume 1--440 pages, Volume 2--249 pages, September 24, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 07-42
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Highways
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Noise
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Grand Teton National Park
KW  - Yellowstone National Park
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824510?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINTER+USE+PLANS%2C+YELLOWSTONE+AND+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARKS%2C+JOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER+JR+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WINTER+USE+PLANS%2C+YELLOWSTONE+AND+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARKS%2C+JOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER+JR+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WINTER USE PLANS, YELLOWSTONE AND GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARKS, JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER JR MEMORIAL PARKWAY, WYOMING.
AN  - 36341658; 12941
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of a winter use management plan for Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks and the associated John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway in Wyoming is proposed. Issues have arisen concerning the type, amount, and character of historical winter access and recreation and their impact on park resources, values, and/or other visitors. Key issues identified during scoping include those related with socioeconomic conditions, health and human safety, wildlife habitat and wildlife disturbance, air quality, natural soundscapes, visitor access and circulation, and visitor experience. Seven alternative winter use management plans, including a No Action Alternative, which would close all routes to motorized oversnow recreation, are considered in this final EIS. Historic levels of snowmobile use would be allowed, but commercial guides would be required for snowmobilers. Snowmobile entry would be limited to 720 vehicles per day in Yellowstone National Park and 140 vehicle per day in Grand Teton National Park. Passenger limits would also be established and enforced. Snowcoaches would be required to meet best available technology standards, and there would be a daily limit on snowcoach trips. Sylvan Pass would be closed to through travel. Alternative 1 would put into place permanently the provisions of the temporary winter use plan established in August 2004. Alternative 2 would prohibit recreational snowmobiling in the parks in favor of snowcoach access. Alternative 3(A) would close much of Yellowstone to oversnow travel, leaving the South Entrance to Old Faithful route open. A Alternative 3(B), which is the No Action Alternative, closes all routes to motorized oversnow recreation. This would be the outcome of the current temporary plan should no new decision be made. The other four alternatives (Alternatives 4 through 7) would allow varying levels of snowmobile and snowcoach access to continue in the parks. Alternative 6 would provide for the plowing of roads in Yellowstone to allow wheeled-vehicle access from West Yellowstone and Mammoth to Old Faithful. Alternative 7, which is the preferred alternative, would reduce the daily number of snowmobiles from 720, as proposed in the draft EIS, to 540 in Yellowstone and 65 in Grand Teton and the Parkway to provide better protection for park soundscapes and other resources. In Yellowstone, all snowmobilers would be required to travel with a commercial guide and, in both park, most snowmobiles would be required to be equipped with the "best available technology". The number of snowcoaches allowed into Yellowstone each day would be limited to 83. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative plan would ensure that park visitors had a range of winter recreation opportunities appropriate to the national park setting and that these activities would not impair or irreparably harm park resources or values. Access to the park, which would be impossible for some without the use of motor vehicles would be available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Snowcoaches and, more so, snowmobiles would damage vegetation and the associated habitat and disturb wildlife. The use of snowmobiles, and to some extent snowcoaches, would be resented by recreationist would desire an undisturbed experience of winter solitude and naturalness. Even after the snowmobile and snowcoaches have passed through an area, the will have left telltale signs of their presence in tracks and, in some cases, churned up earth, marring the pristine visual aesthetics of the parks. Noise from snowmobiles, and less so from snowcoaches, can reach extremely high levels in the near-field. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.)
JF  - EPA number: 070405, Volume 1--440 pages, Volume 2--249 pages, September 24, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 07-42
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Highways
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Noise
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Grand Teton National Park
KW  - Yellowstone National Park
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36341658?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINTER+USE+PLANS%2C+YELLOWSTONE+AND+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARKS%2C+JOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER+JR+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WINTER+USE+PLANS%2C+YELLOWSTONE+AND+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARKS%2C+JOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER+JR+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH COAST CONDUIT/UPPER REACH RELIABILITY PROJECT, GLEN ANNIE CANYON, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - SOUTH COAST CONDUIT/UPPER REACH RELIABILITY PROJECT, GLEN ANNIE CANYON, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 756824592; 13606-080381_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement of the operational flexibility, reliability, and conveyance capacity of the South Coast Conduit (SCC) in Glen Annie Canyon between the South Portal of the Tecolote Tunnel and the Corona del Mar Water Treatment Plant (CDMWTP) is proposed in Santa Barbara County, California to accommodate peak demand levels and to allow easier maintenance of the pipeline. The SCC and Tecolote Tunnel were constructed in the 1950s as part of the Cachuma Project, which was designed to provide for storage of surface water from the Santa Ynez River watershed and a terminal point for the State Water Project (SWP) water at Lake Cachuma for the South Coast communities of Goleta, Santa Barbara, Montecito, Summerland, and Carpinteria. As limitations and age of the original equipment, significant system modifications, and increased demands constrain the ability of the SCC to function at the system's original design capacity, the Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board, which maintains the SCC, has been forced to rely on water stored in Lauro, Ortega, and Carpinteria reservoirs to meet regional water needs. In addition, no redundant supply or pipeline exists to convey Cachuma Project water or SWP water to the South Coast if the upper reach of the SCC goes out of service due to scheduled repairs or unexpected system breakdown. As the upper reach of the SCC has the largest demand deficit and is located upstream from the sources of demand, the proposed improvements would allow more water flow farther along the pipeline to improve the level of service and reliability of the SCC. Five alternatives pipeline alignments, as well as a No Project Alternative And a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The No Action and the No Project alternatives differ in that the former would provide for site improvements that could require the issuance of federal permits at stream crossings, while the latter would include no such site improvements. The preferred alternative would provide a pipeline adjacent (parallel) to the existing SCC pipeline along portions of existing easements and south of the existing SCC pipeline from approximately Station 60+00 to the east end of Glen Annie Reservoir and from east of Glen Annie Creek to the Corona del Mar turnout. The pipeline would connect SCC structures at the South Portal and the CDMWTP and, possibly, Glen Annie structures. A new South Portal diversion/waterway structure would be constructed to divert water into each pipeline. Magnetic flowmeters would be installed at the South Portal of (CDMWTP) to provide improved flow rate measurement accuracy. In order to shut down one of the pipelines for maintenance tasks, the structure would include the installation of slide gates or butterfly valves. Modifications to the CDMWTP turnout structure would also be required to provide flow control. The existing vent structure could be demolished. The pipeline alignment would be connected to the Glen Anne turnout upstream of the weir that regulates the hydraulic grade line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would replace deteriorated water supply infrastructure with adequate structures to accommodate regional water needs and improve the level of service; provide a second pipeline to convey Cachuma Project water of SWP water to the South Coast if the upper reach of the SCC goes out of service for any reason; and increase the operational flexibility of the SCC by providing higher flow rates to accommodate regional water needs during times of peak demand. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the new pipeline would result in the long-term loss of oak woodland and the temporary loss of riparian woodland and seasonal wetlands. One site potential eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would be displaced, and the project could disturb or destroy paleontological resources. Construction and operation of the system could result in releases of hazardous pollutants that would violate water quality standards. The preferred pipeline alignment would require crossings at the West Fork and the main stem of Glen Annie Creek. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080381, 234 pages and maps, September 22, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - California
KW  - Santa Ynez River
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824592?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-09-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+CONDUIT%2FUPPER+REACH+RELIABILITY+PROJECT%2C+GLEN+ANNIE+CANYON%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+CONDUIT%2FUPPER+REACH+RELIABILITY+PROJECT%2C+GLEN+ANNIE+CANYON%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 22, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH COAST CONDUIT/UPPER REACH RELIABILITY PROJECT, GLEN ANNIE CANYON, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 16376619; 13606
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement of the operational flexibility, reliability, and conveyance capacity of the South Coast Conduit (SCC) in Glen Annie Canyon between the South Portal of the Tecolote Tunnel and the Corona del Mar Water Treatment Plant (CDMWTP) is proposed in Santa Barbara County, California to accommodate peak demand levels and to allow easier maintenance of the pipeline. The SCC and Tecolote Tunnel were constructed in the 1950s as part of the Cachuma Project, which was designed to provide for storage of surface water from the Santa Ynez River watershed and a terminal point for the State Water Project (SWP) water at Lake Cachuma for the South Coast communities of Goleta, Santa Barbara, Montecito, Summerland, and Carpinteria. As limitations and age of the original equipment, significant system modifications, and increased demands constrain the ability of the SCC to function at the system's original design capacity, the Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board, which maintains the SCC, has been forced to rely on water stored in Lauro, Ortega, and Carpinteria reservoirs to meet regional water needs. In addition, no redundant supply or pipeline exists to convey Cachuma Project water or SWP water to the South Coast if the upper reach of the SCC goes out of service due to scheduled repairs or unexpected system breakdown. As the upper reach of the SCC has the largest demand deficit and is located upstream from the sources of demand, the proposed improvements would allow more water flow farther along the pipeline to improve the level of service and reliability of the SCC. Five alternatives pipeline alignments, as well as a No Project Alternative And a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The No Action and the No Project alternatives differ in that the former would provide for site improvements that could require the issuance of federal permits at stream crossings, while the latter would include no such site improvements. The preferred alternative would provide a pipeline adjacent (parallel) to the existing SCC pipeline along portions of existing easements and south of the existing SCC pipeline from approximately Station 60+00 to the east end of Glen Annie Reservoir and from east of Glen Annie Creek to the Corona del Mar turnout. The pipeline would connect SCC structures at the South Portal and the CDMWTP and, possibly, Glen Annie structures. A new South Portal diversion/waterway structure would be constructed to divert water into each pipeline. Magnetic flowmeters would be installed at the South Portal of (CDMWTP) to provide improved flow rate measurement accuracy. In order to shut down one of the pipelines for maintenance tasks, the structure would include the installation of slide gates or butterfly valves. Modifications to the CDMWTP turnout structure would also be required to provide flow control. The existing vent structure could be demolished. The pipeline alignment would be connected to the Glen Anne turnout upstream of the weir that regulates the hydraulic grade line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would replace deteriorated water supply infrastructure with adequate structures to accommodate regional water needs and improve the level of service; provide a second pipeline to convey Cachuma Project water of SWP water to the South Coast if the upper reach of the SCC goes out of service for any reason; and increase the operational flexibility of the SCC by providing higher flow rates to accommodate regional water needs during times of peak demand. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the new pipeline would result in the long-term loss of oak woodland and the temporary loss of riparian woodland and seasonal wetlands. One site potential eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would be displaced, and the project could disturb or destroy paleontological resources. Construction and operation of the system could result in releases of hazardous pollutants that would violate water quality standards. The preferred pipeline alignment would require crossings at the West Fork and the main stem of Glen Annie Creek. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080381, 234 pages and maps, September 22, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Water
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - California
KW  - Santa Ynez River
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16376619?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-09-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+CONDUIT%2FUPPER+REACH+RELIABILITY+PROJECT%2C+GLEN+ANNIE+CANYON%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+CONDUIT%2FUPPER+REACH+RELIABILITY+PROJECT%2C+GLEN+ANNIE+CANYON%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 22, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA.
AN  - 36342843; 13135
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and in some areas uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be loss restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 070398, Volume 1-367 pages and maps, Volume 2--398 pages, Volume 3--301 pages, September 20, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: FES 07-39
KW  - Exploration
KW  - Fish
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Research
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342843?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-09-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 20, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, VERNAL FIELD OFFICE, VERNAL, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36341164; 12939
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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), were considered in the draft 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), which is again identified as the preferred alternative in this draft supplement to the draft EIS, 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. This supplement, however, adds a fifth alternative (Alternative E) for consideration. The newly considered alternative identifies 277,596 acres within 25 areas not designated as WSAs that the BLM has found to possess wilderness characteristics and outlines a planning for managing those lands to preserve and protect their wilderness characteristics. The new alternative also addresses lands designated as administratively open with controlled surface use, administratively open with no surface occupancy allowed, ACEC designations, wild and scenic river corridor designations, and designation of land available 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0340D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 070403, 277 pages, September 20, 2007
PY  - 2007
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[STS]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/36341164?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-09-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VERNAL+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+VERNAL%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VERNAL+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+VERNAL%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PRICE FIELD OFFICE FOR NON-WSA LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS, PRICE, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2004).
AN  - 36341555; 12926
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general resource management plan for public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) 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 paleontologic 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 (Alternative ?), were considered in the draft EIS of July 2004. 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 environmental concern (ACECs) 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. A July 2004 draft supplement to the draft EIS provides additional information and analysis related to four candidate ACECs not mentioned above or addressed in the draft EIS. The newly considered areas encompass approximately 256,600 acres. This second draft supplement (at hand) addresses and rectifies the lack of provisions for the management of areas lying outside wilderness study areas (WSAs) that possess wilderness characteristics that demand protection as such. This supplement identifies 937,440 acres of non-WSA lands that the BLM has found to possess wilderness characteristics and analyzes a sixth alternative (Alternative E) that emphasizes managing all of those lands to preserve and protect their wilderness characteristics. The non-WSA areas under consideration include Cedar Mountain, Desolation Canyon, Devils Canyon, Hondu Country, Jack Canyon, Labyrinth Canyon, Limestone Cliffs, Mexican Mountain, Molen Reef, Muddy Creek-Crack Canyon, Mussentuchit Badlands, Never Sweat Wash, Price River, San Rafael Reef, Sids Mountain, Turtle Canyon, Upper Muddy Creek, Eagle Canyon, Flat Tops, Lost Spring Wash, Rock Canyon, San Rafael Knob, San Rafael River, South Horn Mountain, Sweetwater Reef, Wildcat Knolls Extension, and Wild Horse Mesa. The other five alternatives are summarized briefly. Alternative D remains the preferred alternative. 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. 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: 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. management of the non-WSAs as WSAs would remove the affected areas from exploitative uses and the development of recreational facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a previous draft supplement, see 05-0070D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 06-0351D, Volume 30, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 070383, Draft Supplement--147 pages, Draft EIS--987 pages, September 5, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-42
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 Habitat
KW  - Wildlife 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/36341555?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-09-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+PRICE+FIELD+OFFICE+FOR+NON-WSA+LANDS+WITH+WILDERNESS+CHARACTERISTICS%2C+PRICE%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2004%29.&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+PRICE+FIELD+OFFICE+FOR+NON-WSA+LANDS+WITH+WILDERNESS+CHARACTERISTICS%2C+PRICE%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 5, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - HELLS CANYON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, IDAHO AND OREGON (FERC PROJECT NO. 1971-079). [Part 3 of 4]
T2  - HELLS CANYON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, IDAHO AND OREGON (FERC PROJECT NO. 1971-079).
AN  - 756824490; 12919-070376_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a license for the continued operation of Idaho Power Company's 1,167-megawatt (MW) Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Project, located on the snake River in Washington and Adams counties, Idaho and Wallowa and Baker counties, Oregon, is proposed. The project consists of three developments, namely, dams, reservoirs, and powerhouses, on the segment of the Snake River forming the border between Idaho and Oregon. The three developments are known as Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon, also of which are reservoirs impounded by dams, with the associated power generation facilities. In addition to hydropower, the dams provide flood control storage and water quality and fishery enhancement releases. The project also includes transmission facilities, fish hatcheries and related facilities, and recreational facilities. Project lands lie within the Payette National Forest, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, and lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the project would continue to operate under current license conditions, the applicant's proposal, and the proposal with recommended alterations stipulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (NERC). The applicant's proposal would provide for continued operation of all three components of the project, largely adhering to operating constraints established under the existing license with the addition of 94 environmental enhancement measures to address water quality improvement, improvement of hatchery facilities, protection of fall chinook salmon, improvement of the white sturgeon population, introduction of native salmonids into project tributaries, protection of resident warm-water fish, acquisition and improvement of 22,761 acres of upland and 821 acres of riparian habitat to benefit wildlife, noxious weed control, protection and interpretation of archaeological and historic resources, improvement of recreational sites and facilities, and improvement of the appearance of project facilities to minimize visual contrast with the environment. Under the NERC alternative, all of the applicant's proposed measures would be included in the new license, which would also include stricter reservoir refill targets after the flood control season, augmentation of releases for enhancement of juvenile fall chinook salmon migration conditions, additional ramping restrictions during the fall chinook rearing period, and warm-water fish spawning protection levels in the Brownlee Reservoir. Under the applicant's proposal, the Hells Canyon Project would generate 6.56 million MW-hours (MWh) and provide a net annual benefit of $297.0 million. The FERC alternative would generate 6.54 million MWh per year and provide a net annual benefit of $283.8 million, POSITIVE IMPACTS: The hydroelectric project would continue to provide power to 430,000 customers in Idaho and Oregon and to support system reliability. The continued use of hydropower would provide a renewable energy resources to displace electricity generated by the burning of fossil fuels, thereby, reducing air quality impacts of fossil fuel generation. Temperature controls through release FERC release stipulations would reduce the impact of water temperatures in reservoir releases to a point at which no impact on chinook salmon and other fish downstream of the dam would be expected. Dissolved oxygen levels would improve significantly downstream of the Hells Canyon Dam. Acquisition of terrestrial habitat and habitat enhancement measures would provide additional protection to rare plant species as well as animal wildlife. Cultural resources. The reservoirs would continue to provide opportunities for flat water recreationists. Flow augmentation under the FERC proposal would provide more stabilized flows for river boaters. Cultural resources would receive additional protection and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the applicant's proposal water temperatures would be cooler in the spring and summer and warmer in the fall and winter than optimal temperature in these seasons, resulting in reduced salmon populations and increases of those salmon who use the river as spawning habitat. Under the proposal, TGD levels downstream would continue to exceed the 110-percent saturation criterion during virtually all spill conditions, increasing the likelihood of gas bubble trauma (GBT). Under the FERC proposal TGD exceedances and the likelihood of GBT would increase slightly in early to mid-June in medium-high and extremely high flow years. Dissolved oxygen supplementation would be improved under either proposal, but the FERC recommendations would provide for greater improvement. Drawdowns of the Brownlee Reservoir under the applicant's proposal would continue to mar lake aesthetics. Either relicensing proposal could result in rate increases for electricity consumers; the impact of the FERC proposal would be greater than that of the applicant's proposal. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0486D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 070376, Volume I--656 pages, Volume II--731 pages, August 30, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/FEIS-0199F
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fish Hatcheries
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Payette National Forest,
KW  - Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
KW  - Hells Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Snake River
KW  - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance
KW  - Federal Power Act of 1920, Licensing
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824490?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HELLS+CANYON+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+IDAHO+AND+OREGON+%28FERC+PROJECT+NO.+1971-079%29.&rft.title=HELLS+CANYON+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+IDAHO+AND+OREGON+%28FERC+PROJECT+NO.+1971-079%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 30, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - HELLS CANYON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, IDAHO AND OREGON (FERC PROJECT NO. 1971-079). [Part 4 of 4]
T2  - HELLS CANYON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, IDAHO AND OREGON (FERC PROJECT NO. 1971-079).
AN  - 756824441; 12919-070376_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a license for the continued operation of Idaho Power Company's 1,167-megawatt (MW) Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Project, located on the snake River in Washington and Adams counties, Idaho and Wallowa and Baker counties, Oregon, is proposed. The project consists of three developments, namely, dams, reservoirs, and powerhouses, on the segment of the Snake River forming the border between Idaho and Oregon. The three developments are known as Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon, also of which are reservoirs impounded by dams, with the associated power generation facilities. In addition to hydropower, the dams provide flood control storage and water quality and fishery enhancement releases. The project also includes transmission facilities, fish hatcheries and related facilities, and recreational facilities. Project lands lie within the Payette National Forest, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, and lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the project would continue to operate under current license conditions, the applicant's proposal, and the proposal with recommended alterations stipulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (NERC). The applicant's proposal would provide for continued operation of all three components of the project, largely adhering to operating constraints established under the existing license with the addition of 94 environmental enhancement measures to address water quality improvement, improvement of hatchery facilities, protection of fall chinook salmon, improvement of the white sturgeon population, introduction of native salmonids into project tributaries, protection of resident warm-water fish, acquisition and improvement of 22,761 acres of upland and 821 acres of riparian habitat to benefit wildlife, noxious weed control, protection and interpretation of archaeological and historic resources, improvement of recreational sites and facilities, and improvement of the appearance of project facilities to minimize visual contrast with the environment. Under the NERC alternative, all of the applicant's proposed measures would be included in the new license, which would also include stricter reservoir refill targets after the flood control season, augmentation of releases for enhancement of juvenile fall chinook salmon migration conditions, additional ramping restrictions during the fall chinook rearing period, and warm-water fish spawning protection levels in the Brownlee Reservoir. Under the applicant's proposal, the Hells Canyon Project would generate 6.56 million MW-hours (MWh) and provide a net annual benefit of $297.0 million. The FERC alternative would generate 6.54 million MWh per year and provide a net annual benefit of $283.8 million, POSITIVE IMPACTS: The hydroelectric project would continue to provide power to 430,000 customers in Idaho and Oregon and to support system reliability. The continued use of hydropower would provide a renewable energy resources to displace electricity generated by the burning of fossil fuels, thereby, reducing air quality impacts of fossil fuel generation. Temperature controls through release FERC release stipulations would reduce the impact of water temperatures in reservoir releases to a point at which no impact on chinook salmon and other fish downstream of the dam would be expected. Dissolved oxygen levels would improve significantly downstream of the Hells Canyon Dam. Acquisition of terrestrial habitat and habitat enhancement measures would provide additional protection to rare plant species as well as animal wildlife. Cultural resources. The reservoirs would continue to provide opportunities for flat water recreationists. Flow augmentation under the FERC proposal would provide more stabilized flows for river boaters. Cultural resources would receive additional protection and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the applicant's proposal water temperatures would be cooler in the spring and summer and warmer in the fall and winter than optimal temperature in these seasons, resulting in reduced salmon populations and increases of those salmon who use the river as spawning habitat. Under the proposal, TGD levels downstream would continue to exceed the 110-percent saturation criterion during virtually all spill conditions, increasing the likelihood of gas bubble trauma (GBT). Under the FERC proposal TGD exceedances and the likelihood of GBT would increase slightly in early to mid-June in medium-high and extremely high flow years. Dissolved oxygen supplementation would be improved under either proposal, but the FERC recommendations would provide for greater improvement. Drawdowns of the Brownlee Reservoir under the applicant's proposal would continue to mar lake aesthetics. Either relicensing proposal could result in rate increases for electricity consumers; the impact of the FERC proposal would be greater than that of the applicant's proposal. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0486D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 070376, Volume I--656 pages, Volume II--731 pages, August 30, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/FEIS-0199F
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fish Hatcheries
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Payette National Forest,
KW  - Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
KW  - Hells Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Snake River
KW  - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance
KW  - Federal Power Act of 1920, Licensing
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824441?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HELLS+CANYON+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+IDAHO+AND+OREGON+%28FERC+PROJECT+NO.+1971-079%29.&rft.title=HELLS+CANYON+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+IDAHO+AND+OREGON+%28FERC+PROJECT+NO.+1971-079%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 30, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - HELLS CANYON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, IDAHO AND OREGON (FERC PROJECT NO. 1971-079). [Part 2 of 4]
T2  - HELLS CANYON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, IDAHO AND OREGON (FERC PROJECT NO. 1971-079).
AN  - 756824431; 12919-070376_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a license for the continued operation of Idaho Power Company's 1,167-megawatt (MW) Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Project, located on the snake River in Washington and Adams counties, Idaho and Wallowa and Baker counties, Oregon, is proposed. The project consists of three developments, namely, dams, reservoirs, and powerhouses, on the segment of the Snake River forming the border between Idaho and Oregon. The three developments are known as Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon, also of which are reservoirs impounded by dams, with the associated power generation facilities. In addition to hydropower, the dams provide flood control storage and water quality and fishery enhancement releases. The project also includes transmission facilities, fish hatcheries and related facilities, and recreational facilities. Project lands lie within the Payette National Forest, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, and lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the project would continue to operate under current license conditions, the applicant's proposal, and the proposal with recommended alterations stipulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (NERC). The applicant's proposal would provide for continued operation of all three components of the project, largely adhering to operating constraints established under the existing license with the addition of 94 environmental enhancement measures to address water quality improvement, improvement of hatchery facilities, protection of fall chinook salmon, improvement of the white sturgeon population, introduction of native salmonids into project tributaries, protection of resident warm-water fish, acquisition and improvement of 22,761 acres of upland and 821 acres of riparian habitat to benefit wildlife, noxious weed control, protection and interpretation of archaeological and historic resources, improvement of recreational sites and facilities, and improvement of the appearance of project facilities to minimize visual contrast with the environment. Under the NERC alternative, all of the applicant's proposed measures would be included in the new license, which would also include stricter reservoir refill targets after the flood control season, augmentation of releases for enhancement of juvenile fall chinook salmon migration conditions, additional ramping restrictions during the fall chinook rearing period, and warm-water fish spawning protection levels in the Brownlee Reservoir. Under the applicant's proposal, the Hells Canyon Project would generate 6.56 million MW-hours (MWh) and provide a net annual benefit of $297.0 million. The FERC alternative would generate 6.54 million MWh per year and provide a net annual benefit of $283.8 million, POSITIVE IMPACTS: The hydroelectric project would continue to provide power to 430,000 customers in Idaho and Oregon and to support system reliability. The continued use of hydropower would provide a renewable energy resources to displace electricity generated by the burning of fossil fuels, thereby, reducing air quality impacts of fossil fuel generation. Temperature controls through release FERC release stipulations would reduce the impact of water temperatures in reservoir releases to a point at which no impact on chinook salmon and other fish downstream of the dam would be expected. Dissolved oxygen levels would improve significantly downstream of the Hells Canyon Dam. Acquisition of terrestrial habitat and habitat enhancement measures would provide additional protection to rare plant species as well as animal wildlife. Cultural resources. The reservoirs would continue to provide opportunities for flat water recreationists. Flow augmentation under the FERC proposal would provide more stabilized flows for river boaters. Cultural resources would receive additional protection and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the applicant's proposal water temperatures would be cooler in the spring and summer and warmer in the fall and winter than optimal temperature in these seasons, resulting in reduced salmon populations and increases of those salmon who use the river as spawning habitat. Under the proposal, TGD levels downstream would continue to exceed the 110-percent saturation criterion during virtually all spill conditions, increasing the likelihood of gas bubble trauma (GBT). Under the FERC proposal TGD exceedances and the likelihood of GBT would increase slightly in early to mid-June in medium-high and extremely high flow years. Dissolved oxygen supplementation would be improved under either proposal, but the FERC recommendations would provide for greater improvement. Drawdowns of the Brownlee Reservoir under the applicant's proposal would continue to mar lake aesthetics. Either relicensing proposal could result in rate increases for electricity consumers; the impact of the FERC proposal would be greater than that of the applicant's proposal. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0486D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 070376, Volume I--656 pages, Volume II--731 pages, August 30, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/FEIS-0199F
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fish Hatcheries
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Payette National Forest,
KW  - Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
KW  - Hells Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Snake River
KW  - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance
KW  - Federal Power Act of 1920, Licensing
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824431?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HELLS+CANYON+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+IDAHO+AND+OREGON+%28FERC+PROJECT+NO.+1971-079%29.&rft.title=HELLS+CANYON+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+IDAHO+AND+OREGON+%28FERC+PROJECT+NO.+1971-079%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 30, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - HELLS CANYON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, IDAHO AND OREGON (FERC PROJECT NO. 1971-079). [Part 1 of 4]
T2  - HELLS CANYON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, IDAHO AND OREGON (FERC PROJECT NO. 1971-079).
AN  - 756824420; 12919-070376_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a license for the continued operation of Idaho Power Company's 1,167-megawatt (MW) Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Project, located on the snake River in Washington and Adams counties, Idaho and Wallowa and Baker counties, Oregon, is proposed. The project consists of three developments, namely, dams, reservoirs, and powerhouses, on the segment of the Snake River forming the border between Idaho and Oregon. The three developments are known as Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon, also of which are reservoirs impounded by dams, with the associated power generation facilities. In addition to hydropower, the dams provide flood control storage and water quality and fishery enhancement releases. The project also includes transmission facilities, fish hatcheries and related facilities, and recreational facilities. Project lands lie within the Payette National Forest, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, and lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the project would continue to operate under current license conditions, the applicant's proposal, and the proposal with recommended alterations stipulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (NERC). The applicant's proposal would provide for continued operation of all three components of the project, largely adhering to operating constraints established under the existing license with the addition of 94 environmental enhancement measures to address water quality improvement, improvement of hatchery facilities, protection of fall chinook salmon, improvement of the white sturgeon population, introduction of native salmonids into project tributaries, protection of resident warm-water fish, acquisition and improvement of 22,761 acres of upland and 821 acres of riparian habitat to benefit wildlife, noxious weed control, protection and interpretation of archaeological and historic resources, improvement of recreational sites and facilities, and improvement of the appearance of project facilities to minimize visual contrast with the environment. Under the NERC alternative, all of the applicant's proposed measures would be included in the new license, which would also include stricter reservoir refill targets after the flood control season, augmentation of releases for enhancement of juvenile fall chinook salmon migration conditions, additional ramping restrictions during the fall chinook rearing period, and warm-water fish spawning protection levels in the Brownlee Reservoir. Under the applicant's proposal, the Hells Canyon Project would generate 6.56 million MW-hours (MWh) and provide a net annual benefit of $297.0 million. The FERC alternative would generate 6.54 million MWh per year and provide a net annual benefit of $283.8 million, POSITIVE IMPACTS: The hydroelectric project would continue to provide power to 430,000 customers in Idaho and Oregon and to support system reliability. The continued use of hydropower would provide a renewable energy resources to displace electricity generated by the burning of fossil fuels, thereby, reducing air quality impacts of fossil fuel generation. Temperature controls through release FERC release stipulations would reduce the impact of water temperatures in reservoir releases to a point at which no impact on chinook salmon and other fish downstream of the dam would be expected. Dissolved oxygen levels would improve significantly downstream of the Hells Canyon Dam. Acquisition of terrestrial habitat and habitat enhancement measures would provide additional protection to rare plant species as well as animal wildlife. Cultural resources. The reservoirs would continue to provide opportunities for flat water recreationists. Flow augmentation under the FERC proposal would provide more stabilized flows for river boaters. Cultural resources would receive additional protection and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the applicant's proposal water temperatures would be cooler in the spring and summer and warmer in the fall and winter than optimal temperature in these seasons, resulting in reduced salmon populations and increases of those salmon who use the river as spawning habitat. Under the proposal, TGD levels downstream would continue to exceed the 110-percent saturation criterion during virtually all spill conditions, increasing the likelihood of gas bubble trauma (GBT). Under the FERC proposal TGD exceedances and the likelihood of GBT would increase slightly in early to mid-June in medium-high and extremely high flow years. Dissolved oxygen supplementation would be improved under either proposal, but the FERC recommendations would provide for greater improvement. Drawdowns of the Brownlee Reservoir under the applicant's proposal would continue to mar lake aesthetics. Either relicensing proposal could result in rate increases for electricity consumers; the impact of the FERC proposal would be greater than that of the applicant's proposal. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0486D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 070376, Volume I--656 pages, Volume II--731 pages, August 30, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/FEIS-0199F
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fish Hatcheries
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Payette National Forest,
KW  - Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
KW  - Hells Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Snake River
KW  - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance
KW  - Federal Power Act of 1920, Licensing
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824420?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HELLS+CANYON+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+IDAHO+AND+OREGON+%28FERC+PROJECT+NO.+1971-079%29.&rft.title=HELLS+CANYON+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+IDAHO+AND+OREGON+%28FERC+PROJECT+NO.+1971-079%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 30, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - HELLS CANYON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, IDAHO AND OREGON (FERC PROJECT NO. 1971-079).
AN  - 36340519; 12919
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a license for the continued operation of Idaho Power Company's 1,167-megawatt (MW) Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Project, located on the snake River in Washington and Adams counties, Idaho and Wallowa and Baker counties, Oregon, is proposed. The project consists of three developments, namely, dams, reservoirs, and powerhouses, on the segment of the Snake River forming the border between Idaho and Oregon. The three developments are known as Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon, also of which are reservoirs impounded by dams, with the associated power generation facilities. In addition to hydropower, the dams provide flood control storage and water quality and fishery enhancement releases. The project also includes transmission facilities, fish hatcheries and related facilities, and recreational facilities. Project lands lie within the Payette National Forest, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, and lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the project would continue to operate under current license conditions, the applicant's proposal, and the proposal with recommended alterations stipulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (NERC). The applicant's proposal would provide for continued operation of all three components of the project, largely adhering to operating constraints established under the existing license with the addition of 94 environmental enhancement measures to address water quality improvement, improvement of hatchery facilities, protection of fall chinook salmon, improvement of the white sturgeon population, introduction of native salmonids into project tributaries, protection of resident warm-water fish, acquisition and improvement of 22,761 acres of upland and 821 acres of riparian habitat to benefit wildlife, noxious weed control, protection and interpretation of archaeological and historic resources, improvement of recreational sites and facilities, and improvement of the appearance of project facilities to minimize visual contrast with the environment. Under the NERC alternative, all of the applicant's proposed measures would be included in the new license, which would also include stricter reservoir refill targets after the flood control season, augmentation of releases for enhancement of juvenile fall chinook salmon migration conditions, additional ramping restrictions during the fall chinook rearing period, and warm-water fish spawning protection levels in the Brownlee Reservoir. Under the applicant's proposal, the Hells Canyon Project would generate 6.56 million MW-hours (MWh) and provide a net annual benefit of $297.0 million. The FERC alternative would generate 6.54 million MWh per year and provide a net annual benefit of $283.8 million, POSITIVE IMPACTS: The hydroelectric project would continue to provide power to 430,000 customers in Idaho and Oregon and to support system reliability. The continued use of hydropower would provide a renewable energy resources to displace electricity generated by the burning of fossil fuels, thereby, reducing air quality impacts of fossil fuel generation. Temperature controls through release FERC release stipulations would reduce the impact of water temperatures in reservoir releases to a point at which no impact on chinook salmon and other fish downstream of the dam would be expected. Dissolved oxygen levels would improve significantly downstream of the Hells Canyon Dam. Acquisition of terrestrial habitat and habitat enhancement measures would provide additional protection to rare plant species as well as animal wildlife. Cultural resources. The reservoirs would continue to provide opportunities for flat water recreationists. Flow augmentation under the FERC proposal would provide more stabilized flows for river boaters. Cultural resources would receive additional protection and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the applicant's proposal water temperatures would be cooler in the spring and summer and warmer in the fall and winter than optimal temperature in these seasons, resulting in reduced salmon populations and increases of those salmon who use the river as spawning habitat. Under the proposal, TGD levels downstream would continue to exceed the 110-percent saturation criterion during virtually all spill conditions, increasing the likelihood of gas bubble trauma (GBT). Under the FERC proposal TGD exceedances and the likelihood of GBT would increase slightly in early to mid-June in medium-high and extremely high flow years. Dissolved oxygen supplementation would be improved under either proposal, but the FERC recommendations would provide for greater improvement. Drawdowns of the Brownlee Reservoir under the applicant's proposal would continue to mar lake aesthetics. Either relicensing proposal could result in rate increases for electricity consumers; the impact of the FERC proposal would be greater than that of the applicant's proposal. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0486D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 070376, Volume I--656 pages, Volume II--731 pages, August 30, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/FEIS-0199F
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fish Hatcheries
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Payette National Forest,
KW  - Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
KW  - Hells Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Snake River
KW  - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance
KW  - Federal Power Act of 1920, Licensing
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36340519?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HELLS+CANYON+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+IDAHO+AND+OREGON+%28FERC+PROJECT+NO.+1971-079%29.&rft.title=HELLS+CANYON+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+IDAHO+AND+OREGON+%28FERC+PROJECT+NO.+1971-079%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 30, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EAGLE BUTTE WEST COAL LEASE APPLICATION (WYW155132), WYOMING POWDER RIVER BASIN. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - EAGLE BUTTE WEST COAL LEASE APPLICATION (WYW155132), WYOMING POWDER RIVER BASIN.
AN  - 756824456; 12914-070371_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The leasing by application of the Eagle Butte West Tract, a tract of federal coal estate in the Wyoming Power River Basin is proposed by RAG Coal West, Inc. The 1,397.64-acre tract, which contains approximately 238 million tons of in-place federal coal, lies adjacent to an existing surface coal mine in Campbell County. Fountain Coal West, the operator of the adjacent Eagle Butte Mine, proposes to mine the tract as a maintenance lease for the existing mine. At Eagle Butte Mine, there are two mineable coal seams, which are locally referred to as the Roland (upper) seam and the Smith (lower) seam. The seams are separated by a shale parting of variable thickness. The mineable seams are referred to as the Anderson and Canyon, Wyodak-Anderson, and Wyodak coal beds at other mines in the eastern Powder River Basin. Mining would remove an average of 325 feet of overburden, eight feet of interburden, and 110 feet of coal. The mine would produce 25 million tons per year, extending the life of the existing mine by eight to nine years, depending upon whether Highway 14-16, which overlays a portion of the tract, is moved away from the tract. The mine life would extend 12 years. In addition to the applicant's proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) and an alternative tract which encompasses 1,427.77 acres (Alternative 1). Alternative 1, which is currently the preferred alternative, would include 241 million tons of mineable coal, though access to the entire tract would require the relocation of US Highway 14-16. If the highway is not relocated, only 214 million tons of coal would be mineable from the tract. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Coal produced by the mine would be added to domestic reserves, reducing the country's dependence on foreign sources of hydrocarbon fuels for the generation of electricity. Under the applicant's proposal, mining activities would employ 223 workers. Royalty payments for the tract would increase federal revenues by $188 million to $382 million, depending on the alternative selected. The potential additional revenue to the state of Wyoming would range from $267 million to $500 million. Under the currently preferred alternative, the expected rate of production and employment and returns to the federal government via lease royalties and to the state government would be approximately the same as under those of the applicant's proposal. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The existing topography of the tract would be substantially altered during mining. Following reclamation, the average surface elevation would be lower due to coal removal. The reclaimed land surface would contain fewer and gentler topographic features, potentially resulting in a reduction in habitat diversity and wildlife carrying capacity. The geologic structure at the site would be subject to considerable permanent change. Coal-bed natural gas wells would be precluded in the area during mining and gas resources not tapped prior to mining would be vented into the atmosphere and, hence, lost to exploitation. Mining would disturb the coal aquifer and the aquifers in the overburden, and mining operations would require drawdown of the area aquifer. The two creeks that drain the site would have to be rerouted during mining. Approximately 37.5 acres of wetlands would be lost to mining. Lease development would also displace pasture and sagebrush grassland, the latter requiring 20 to 100 years to restore. Habitat for terrestrial vegetation and wildlife and birds, including the federally protected Ute ladies'-tresses orchid, bald eagle, and black-footed ferret would be destroyed. Noise and air pollutant emissions would affect occupied dwellings, businesses, the Rawhide School, and an area airport located in the vicinity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendment of 1976, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq), and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0503D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 070371, 547 pages, August 29, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 06-43
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coal
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824456?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+BUTTE+WEST+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+%28WYW155132%29%2C+WYOMING+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN.&rft.title=EAGLE+BUTTE+WEST+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+%28WYW155132%29%2C+WYOMING+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 29, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EAGLE BUTTE WEST COAL LEASE APPLICATION (WYW155132), WYOMING POWDER RIVER BASIN. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - EAGLE BUTTE WEST COAL LEASE APPLICATION (WYW155132), WYOMING POWDER RIVER BASIN.
AN  - 756824445; 12914-070371_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The leasing by application of the Eagle Butte West Tract, a tract of federal coal estate in the Wyoming Power River Basin is proposed by RAG Coal West, Inc. The 1,397.64-acre tract, which contains approximately 238 million tons of in-place federal coal, lies adjacent to an existing surface coal mine in Campbell County. Fountain Coal West, the operator of the adjacent Eagle Butte Mine, proposes to mine the tract as a maintenance lease for the existing mine. At Eagle Butte Mine, there are two mineable coal seams, which are locally referred to as the Roland (upper) seam and the Smith (lower) seam. The seams are separated by a shale parting of variable thickness. The mineable seams are referred to as the Anderson and Canyon, Wyodak-Anderson, and Wyodak coal beds at other mines in the eastern Powder River Basin. Mining would remove an average of 325 feet of overburden, eight feet of interburden, and 110 feet of coal. The mine would produce 25 million tons per year, extending the life of the existing mine by eight to nine years, depending upon whether Highway 14-16, which overlays a portion of the tract, is moved away from the tract. The mine life would extend 12 years. In addition to the applicant's proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) and an alternative tract which encompasses 1,427.77 acres (Alternative 1). Alternative 1, which is currently the preferred alternative, would include 241 million tons of mineable coal, though access to the entire tract would require the relocation of US Highway 14-16. If the highway is not relocated, only 214 million tons of coal would be mineable from the tract. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Coal produced by the mine would be added to domestic reserves, reducing the country's dependence on foreign sources of hydrocarbon fuels for the generation of electricity. Under the applicant's proposal, mining activities would employ 223 workers. Royalty payments for the tract would increase federal revenues by $188 million to $382 million, depending on the alternative selected. The potential additional revenue to the state of Wyoming would range from $267 million to $500 million. Under the currently preferred alternative, the expected rate of production and employment and returns to the federal government via lease royalties and to the state government would be approximately the same as under those of the applicant's proposal. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The existing topography of the tract would be substantially altered during mining. Following reclamation, the average surface elevation would be lower due to coal removal. The reclaimed land surface would contain fewer and gentler topographic features, potentially resulting in a reduction in habitat diversity and wildlife carrying capacity. The geologic structure at the site would be subject to considerable permanent change. Coal-bed natural gas wells would be precluded in the area during mining and gas resources not tapped prior to mining would be vented into the atmosphere and, hence, lost to exploitation. Mining would disturb the coal aquifer and the aquifers in the overburden, and mining operations would require drawdown of the area aquifer. The two creeks that drain the site would have to be rerouted during mining. Approximately 37.5 acres of wetlands would be lost to mining. Lease development would also displace pasture and sagebrush grassland, the latter requiring 20 to 100 years to restore. Habitat for terrestrial vegetation and wildlife and birds, including the federally protected Ute ladies'-tresses orchid, bald eagle, and black-footed ferret would be destroyed. Noise and air pollutant emissions would affect occupied dwellings, businesses, the Rawhide School, and an area airport located in the vicinity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendment of 1976, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq), and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0503D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 070371, 547 pages, August 29, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 06-43
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coal
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824445?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+BUTTE+WEST+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+%28WYW155132%29%2C+WYOMING+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN.&rft.title=EAGLE+BUTTE+WEST+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+%28WYW155132%29%2C+WYOMING+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 29, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EAGLE BUTTE WEST COAL LEASE APPLICATION (WYW155132), WYOMING POWDER RIVER BASIN.
AN  - 36341316; 12914
AB  - PURPOSE: The leasing by application of the Eagle Butte West Tract, a tract of federal coal estate in the Wyoming Power River Basin is proposed by RAG Coal West, Inc. The 1,397.64-acre tract, which contains approximately 238 million tons of in-place federal coal, lies adjacent to an existing surface coal mine in Campbell County. Fountain Coal West, the operator of the adjacent Eagle Butte Mine, proposes to mine the tract as a maintenance lease for the existing mine. At Eagle Butte Mine, there are two mineable coal seams, which are locally referred to as the Roland (upper) seam and the Smith (lower) seam. The seams are separated by a shale parting of variable thickness. The mineable seams are referred to as the Anderson and Canyon, Wyodak-Anderson, and Wyodak coal beds at other mines in the eastern Powder River Basin. Mining would remove an average of 325 feet of overburden, eight feet of interburden, and 110 feet of coal. The mine would produce 25 million tons per year, extending the life of the existing mine by eight to nine years, depending upon whether Highway 14-16, which overlays a portion of the tract, is moved away from the tract. The mine life would extend 12 years. In addition to the applicant's proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) and an alternative tract which encompasses 1,427.77 acres (Alternative 1). Alternative 1, which is currently the preferred alternative, would include 241 million tons of mineable coal, though access to the entire tract would require the relocation of US Highway 14-16. If the highway is not relocated, only 214 million tons of coal would be mineable from the tract. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Coal produced by the mine would be added to domestic reserves, reducing the country's dependence on foreign sources of hydrocarbon fuels for the generation of electricity. Under the applicant's proposal, mining activities would employ 223 workers. Royalty payments for the tract would increase federal revenues by $188 million to $382 million, depending on the alternative selected. The potential additional revenue to the state of Wyoming would range from $267 million to $500 million. Under the currently preferred alternative, the expected rate of production and employment and returns to the federal government via lease royalties and to the state government would be approximately the same as under those of the applicant's proposal. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The existing topography of the tract would be substantially altered during mining. Following reclamation, the average surface elevation would be lower due to coal removal. The reclaimed land surface would contain fewer and gentler topographic features, potentially resulting in a reduction in habitat diversity and wildlife carrying capacity. The geologic structure at the site would be subject to considerable permanent change. Coal-bed natural gas wells would be precluded in the area during mining and gas resources not tapped prior to mining would be vented into the atmosphere and, hence, lost to exploitation. Mining would disturb the coal aquifer and the aquifers in the overburden, and mining operations would require drawdown of the area aquifer. The two creeks that drain the site would have to be rerouted during mining. Approximately 37.5 acres of wetlands would be lost to mining. Lease development would also displace pasture and sagebrush grassland, the latter requiring 20 to 100 years to restore. Habitat for terrestrial vegetation and wildlife and birds, including the federally protected Ute ladies'-tresses orchid, bald eagle, and black-footed ferret would be destroyed. Noise and air pollutant emissions would affect occupied dwellings, businesses, the Rawhide School, and an area airport located in the vicinity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendment of 1976, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq), and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0503D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 070371, 547 pages, August 29, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 06-43
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coal
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36341316?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+BUTTE+WEST+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+%28WYW155132%29%2C+WYOMING+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN.&rft.title=EAGLE+BUTTE+WEST+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+%28WYW155132%29%2C+WYOMING+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 29, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36342081; 12915
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 draft 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), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070372, 287 pages, August 24, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/ES/PL-07/001+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
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342081?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-24&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 24, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125552; 13558-3_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water storage reservoir, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed to provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. Existing Windy Gap facilities, which were completed in 1985, fall short of the firm yield of water originally anticipated due to limitations and constraints in the existing system. In dry years, the WGP has not been able to divert water due to more senior rights upstream and downstream holding higher priorities to divert water. In addition, the WGP is required to bypass water to maintain certain minimum streamflows downstream of the WGP diversion dam. Granby Reservoir, a component of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT), is currently the only storage facility available for WGP participants. Water conveyed and stored for the C-BT Project has priority over water conveyed and stored for the WGP. Hence, in whet years, which the V-BT system is full, there is no conveyance storage capacity for the WGP, preventing the latter from storing water in wet years for use in subsequent dry years. Dry and wet year conditions result in a WGP firm yield of zero. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. Project implementation would require approval from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for additional physical connections to C-BT facilities. Proposal participants include municipalities, rural domestic water districts, an industrial water users. More specifically, The proposed action, to be known as the Windy Gap Firming Project (WGFP), consists of a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. In 2005, WGFP participants had a firm water supply of 141,000 acre-feet and a demand of 120,000 acre-feet. Water demand for East Slope participants is project to increase to 251,00 acre-feet by 2050. The proposed project and four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The project would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to delivery C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by Windy Gap water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for Windy Gap water in Granby Reservoir. When Windy Gap water was diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of Windy Gap water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other three action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs, ranging in capacity from 30,000 acre-feet to 70,000 acre feet. Cost of the proposed action is estimated at $223.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The WGFP, in the form of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, would increase yield over that of the existing project to provide a portion of their existing and future water demands . Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap, and Kremmling would decline by nearly 10,000 acre-feet, 13,000 acre-feet, and 13,000 acre-feet, respectively. The potential for flooding along East Slope streams below the participants wastewater treatment plant would increase slightly. Pollutants delivered to the Colorado River would increase somewhat, but the river would experience no change in trophic status. The overall extent and frequency of occurrence of fish habitat along the Colorado River would decline, and the potential for exceedance of water temperature standards would increase. The reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. The project would also require acquisition in fee or via easements of private lands and the relocation of utilities. Four residences would be displaced. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 080333, 822 pages and maps, CD-ROM, August 22, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-30
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Colorado River
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125552?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 22, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SAGE STEPPE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STRATEGY, MODOC NATIONAL FOREST, MODOC, LASSEN, SHASTA, AND SISKIYOU COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA AND WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36345702; 12913
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a sage steppe ecosystem restoration strategy within 6.5 million acres or public and private lands within the Modoc National Forest and associated areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Modoc, Lassen, Shasta, and Siskyou counties California and Washoe County, Nevada is proposed. The strategy focuses on the restoration of safe steppe ecosystems that have come to be dominated by juniper as the density of Western juniper has increased over the landscape. The juniper encroachment is largely due to anthropogenic changes, which have resulted in loss of vegetative, habitat, and hydrologic values. The management strategy would broadly identify appropriate restoration methodologies by ecological conditions, provide guidelines for the design and implementation of effective restoration treatments for restoration opportunity areas to be analyzed on a site-by-site basis over a 50-year horizon. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to sage steppe restoration rate, permanent road construction, the uncertainty of the results of treatments proposed, livestock grazing impacts on restoration effectiveness, impacts of restoration on the sustainability of livestock grazing, noxious weeds and non-native invasive species, old-growth juniper retention, loss of juniper wildlife habitat, short-term impacts to sage obligate species, soil productivity and surface hydrology conditions, cultural resources and native American activities, and the practicality of the use of prescribed fire. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), the U.S. Forest Service and BLM would adopt a long-range strategy to restore the stage steppe ecosystem and related species habitat. The integrated, landscape-scale management strategy designed to restore the sage steppe ecosystem across that analysis area would focus on the conditions of the ecosystem that are targeted for restoration. Primary methods to be employed for restoration would include prescribed fire, mechanical restoration, and hand restoration. Using this integrated approach, federal land managers would treat up to 30,000 acres per year across the study area. The strategy would represent a programmatic, landscape-scale approach to restoration. Treatments would require site-specific environmental analysis to meet the objectives of the strategy. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed strategy would restore large sage steppe ecosystems and associated vegetative communities to desired habitat conditions reflecting ecological processes that existed prior to European settlement of the affected areas. The strategy would restore sage steppe ecosystem processes and vegetation that resemble historic mosaics, so that historic fire return intervals in the ecosystems can be sustained. Ecosystem restoration would improve watershed function and condition, restore biodiversity and biological productivity, manage fuels to conform to National Fire Plan requirements, and implement national renewable energy direction. Forage for wildlife and livestock would be significantly enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in a short-term reduction in the availability of forage for domestic livestock, though forage would be increased in the long-term. Mechanical treatments on 23,825 acres and prescribed fire treatment on 135,518 acres would result in short-term degradation of visual aesthetics in affected areas. During treatment periods, some semi-primitive motorized recreation areas would be converted to roaded natural recreation areas, degrading the recreational experience for primitive recreationists. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070370, 422 pages, August 22, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Modoc National Forest
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36345702?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAGE+STEPPE+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STRATEGY%2C+MODOC+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+MODOC%2C+LASSEN%2C+SHASTA%2C+AND+SISKIYOU+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+WASHOE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SAGE+STEPPE+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STRATEGY%2C+MODOC+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+MODOC%2C+LASSEN%2C+SHASTA%2C+AND+SISKIYOU+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+WASHOE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alturas, California; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 22, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002).
AN  - 36341797; 12912
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of an underground gold mind, to be known as the Leeville Project, at a site in the Carlin Trend approximately 20 miles northwest of Carlin in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. The Newmont Mining Company submitted a plan of operations for the mine in April 1997. The mine would involve the sinking of five shafts to a depth of approximately 2,500 feet from the surface to access three main ore bodies. Ancillary mine facilities developed to support underground operations would include shaft hoists, a waste rock disposal facility, a refractory ore stockpile, facilities to support backfill of mined-out stopes, installation and operation of mine dewatering wells, a water treatment plant, and a pipeline/canal system to discharge excess mine water to existing infiltration and irrigation systems in the Boulder Valley. Ore and waste rock would be drilled, blasted, and hoisted to the surface. Most mined-out stopes would be backfilled with cemented rockfill. Development waste rock would be used for stope backfill whenever possible. Ore would be hauled directly to processing facilities at the refractory ore treatment plant located at Newmont's South Operations Area or placed in a refractory ore stockpile approximately 0.5 mile west of the production shaft. Temporary refractory ore stockpiles would be developed in accordance with Newmont's Refractory Ore Stockpile and Waste Rock Dump Design, Construction, and Monitoring Plan. All facilities and surface disturbance would be reclaimed following completion of mining activities. The mine would have a project life of 18 years, during which 18 million tons of ore and waste rock would be generated. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, the draft EIS of March 2002 analyzed four alternatives, including: A) elimination of the canal portion of the water discharge facilities; B) backfilling of shafts; and C) relocation of the waste rock disposal facility and refractory ore stockpile. The preferred alternative incorporates portions of the preferred action and all three action alternatives. The abbreviated final EIS of July 2002 provided errata with respect to the draft EIS and public comments and responses and some associated documentation. This draft supplement to the final EIS provides and expanded and updated analysis of the cumulative impacts of the applicant's proposal in response to a 2006 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would produce a substantial amount of gold, contributing to the nation's reserves of this precious metal. Water removed during dewatering of the mine would be put to beneficial use as irrigation water. The project would continue to provide direct and indirect employment opportunities and result in continue tax base contributions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 486 acres of soil and rangeland vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and recreational resource would be disturbed by mining activities, including 33 acres of private land and 453 acres of public land. Grazing opportunities would be lost on 264 acres providing 36 animal unit months of forage. Noxious weeds could invade the disturbed area. Habitat for federally protected goshawks, burrowing owls, sage grouse, and ferruginous hawks would be affected by mining. Lahontan cutthroat trout, springsnails, spotted frogs, and California floaters have not been documented any stream segments directly impacted by the project, but some of these species could be located in the overall drawdown area. Potential discharge of acidic water from waste rock disposal facilities could threaten soil and groundwater. Removal of groundwater via dewatering wells would increase the depth of aquifer drawdown already occurring due to mining elsewhere in the area and delay restoration of 70 acres of wetlands and riparian zones potentially impacted by existing dewatering activities in the Carlin Trend. Stream flow and related fish habitat recovery would also be delayed due to dewatering. Though 31 cultural resource sites are located in the area, none are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 02-0140D, Volume 26, Number 2 and 02-0374F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 070369, 161 pages and maps, August 22, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-41
KW  - Acids
KW  - Birds
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Metals
KW  - Mining
KW  - Mines
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Streams
KW  - Tailings
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Waste Disposal
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36341797?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 22, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S SOUTH OPERATIONS AREA PROJECT AMENDMENT, ELK AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2002).
AN  - 36340800; 12911
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for continued mining and associated dewatering operations at Newmont Gold Corporation's South Operations Area in Elk and Eureka counties, Nevada is proposed. The South Operations Area consists of the Gold Quarry, Mac, and Tusc open-pit gold mines, as well as associated milling and watering, facilities located in northeastern Nevada approximately six miles northwest of Carlin. Newmont has been mining at this location since 1981. In 1993, the applicant implemented an extensive mitigation plan which has proven effective in mitigating potential impacts and, in some cases, improving the environment in the vicinity of the mine. Four alternatives, including the applicant's proposed action, two modifications of the applicant's proposal, and a No Action Alternative, were considered in this final EIS of April 2002. The applicant's proposal would provide for additional mining to a depth of approximately 350 feet below the currently approved operating level of the Gold Quarry mine; continuing to dewater the mine and discharge groundwater, at a rate no greater than 25,000 gallons per minute, directly into Maggie Creek six miles above its confluence with the Humboldt River; expanding waste rock disposal facilities and leach facilities, and constructing associated ancillary facilities. This draft supplement to the final EIS provides and expanded and updated analysis of the cumulative impacts of the applicant's proposal in response to a 2006 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Several million ounces of gold would be mined, contributing significantly to the national stocks of this precious metal. Backfilling the Mac pit would reduce the extent of waste rock disposal facilities required by six acres. Mining operations would continue to employ local workers and provide tax revenues to the affected counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Total incremental disturbance under the preferred alternative would affect 1,392 acres of soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities, though 1,253 acres would be reclaimed. Approximately 526 million tons of waste rock and ore would be removed from the Gold Quarry pit and dumped at rock disposal facilities, at leach processing facilities, at a tailings facility, or in the Mac pit, altering the topography and landscape of the affected sites. One sinkhole has been documented in the area affected by the Gold Quarry mine. Areas identified as susceptible to sinkhole development include the large area underlain by carbonate rock located north of the Gold Quarry pit. Approximately 495,000 acre-feet of groundwater would be removed through dewatering concurrent with mining activities, causing further decline in groundwater levels, incremental reduction of flows in or complete loss of springs. Five springs and seep sites would be likely to be affected. Two streams would experience loss of reduction or elimination of baseflow both during and after dewatering, affecting aquatic habitat and fisheries and 3.39 acres of wetland. Loss of baseflow and loss of the springs and seeps would affect three livestock grazing allotments. Discharges to Maggie Creek would increase the extent of the associated floodplain and water quality degradation could affect Lahontan cutthroat trout, a federally protected species. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral and Mining Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0358D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 02-0263F, Volume 26, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 070368, 157 pages and maps, August 22, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Metals
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mining
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Soils
KW  - Streams
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Waste Disposal
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36340800?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+SOUTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT+AMENDMENT%2C+ELK+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2002%29.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+SOUTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT+AMENDMENT%2C+ELK+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2002%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Elko, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 22, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO.
AN  - 16370956; 13558
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a water storage reservoir, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed to provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. Existing Windy Gap facilities, which were completed in 1985, fall short of the firm yield of water originally anticipated due to limitations and constraints in the existing system. In dry years, the WGP has not been able to divert water due to more senior rights upstream and downstream holding higher priorities to divert water. In addition, the WGP is required to bypass water to maintain certain minimum streamflows downstream of the WGP diversion dam. Granby Reservoir, a component of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT), is currently the only storage facility available for WGP participants. Water conveyed and stored for the C-BT Project has priority over water conveyed and stored for the WGP. Hence, in whet years, which the V-BT system is full, there is no conveyance storage capacity for the WGP, preventing the latter from storing water in wet years for use in subsequent dry years. Dry and wet year conditions result in a WGP firm yield of zero. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. Project implementation would require approval from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for additional physical connections to C-BT facilities. Proposal participants include municipalities, rural domestic water districts, an industrial water users. More specifically, The proposed action, to be known as the Windy Gap Firming Project (WGFP), consists of a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. In 2005, WGFP participants had a firm water supply of 141,000 acre-feet and a demand of 120,000 acre-feet. Water demand for East Slope participants is project to increase to 251,00 acre-feet by 2050. The proposed project and four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The project would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to delivery C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by Windy Gap water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for Windy Gap water in Granby Reservoir. When Windy Gap water was diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of Windy Gap water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other three action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs, ranging in capacity from 30,000 acre-feet to 70,000 acre feet. Cost of the proposed action is estimated at $223.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The WGFP, in the form of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, would increase yield over that of the existing project to provide a portion of their existing and future water demands . Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap, and Kremmling would decline by nearly 10,000 acre-feet, 13,000 acre-feet, and 13,000 acre-feet, respectively. The potential for flooding along East Slope streams below the participants wastewater treatment plant would increase slightly. Pollutants delivered to the Colorado River would increase somewhat, but the river would experience no change in trophic status. The overall extent and frequency of occurrence of fish habitat along the Colorado River would decline, and the potential for exceedance of water temperature standards would increase. The reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. The project would also require acquisition in fee or via easements of private lands and the relocation of utilities. Four residences would be displaced. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 080333, 822 pages and maps, CD-ROM, August 22, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-30
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dams
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Colorado River
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16370956?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 22, 2007
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.
AN  - 36341274; 12909
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 draft EIS focuses on four reasonable action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative (Alternative 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 alternative 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 benefiting 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 070366, 182 pages, August 17, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES-07-36
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, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36341274?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-17&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 17, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - OVERLAND PASS NATURAL GAS LIQUIDS PIPELINE, OPAL, WYOMING TO HAYES, KANSAS. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - OVERLAND PASS NATURAL GAS LIQUIDS PIPELINE, OPAL, WYOMING TO HAYES, KANSAS.
AN  - 756824944; 12903-070360_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way for the construction and operation of a 760-mile liquid natural gas (LNG) pipeline in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas of Alaska is proposed. The rights-of-way applicants, Overland Pass Pipeline Company, LLC and William Field's Service Company, LLC, would proposes to lay a pipeline from Opal, Wyoming to Hayes, Kansas. Approximately 16 percent of the length of the pipeline would lie within federal lands in Wyoming and Colorado administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. Under the applicant's proposal, the project would consist of the pipeline and the necessary ancillary aboveground facilities. The pipeline would have a diameter of 14 inches from Opal to Echo Springs in Wyoming and 16 inches from Echo Springs to Conway, Kansas. Ancillary aboveground facilities would include two pump stations at the outset and a third at a later date, seven meter stations, 11 pigging facilities, and 114 mainline valves at a total of 92 sites. New electrical service would be required for the pump and meter stations, but the powerlines would be permitted under a separate permitting process. Construction activities would require a 75-foot construction rights-of-way. Following construction and reclamation, the rights-of-way would have a width of 50 feet. Three alternatives, including the applicant's proposal and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The second action alternative would provide for the same facilities as the applicant's proposal, but the pipeline route along 25 miles of the Green River corridor in Wyoming would be shifted to the south; overall, this route would be 4.8 miles longer than the applicant's proposed route, but it would allow for more pipeline to be co-located with existing pipeline rights-of-way. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would allow for the delivery of natural gas from wellfields in Wyoming to markets in the Midwest, where the demand for natural gas, a relatively clean fossil fuel, has increased substantially in the recent past and is expected to continue to increase indefinitely in the future. Construction activities would employ 325 to 650 workers, and the project would generate $100 million in property and ad valorem tax revenues for local and state governments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During construction, the project would disturb 4,759 acres of grassland, 769 acres of shrubland, 2,472 acres of agricultural land, 61 acres of forest, and 81 acres of wetlands. Approximately 4,619 acres of mostly rangeland and agricultural land would be dedicated to pipeline utility uses for the life of the project. Of this area, 9.6 acres would underlie aboveground facilities. During pipeline operations, activities on rights-of-way not providing sites for aboveground facilities would continued unencumbered. While the recovery of grassland, shrubland, and forest vegetation would begin within two years, full recovery of these communities would require more than five years. Wildlife habitat associated with these vegetative types would be lost temporarily, and aboveground facilities and fences would fragment habitat and impede wildlife movements. Though the pipeline would traverse the habitat of a large number of federally protected species, only sensitive fish species found in the Hams Fork and Black Fork rivers would suffer significant negative impacts to their habitat; these species include the flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, and roundtail chub. Most of the length of the pipeline would traverse soils that have shallow topsoil that is either susceptible to erosion or prone to compaction, resulting in poor reclamation potential. A total of 97 perennial waterbodies would be crossed, 96 of which would be crossed using open-cut trenches. Approximately 81 acres of wetlands would be affected during construction, 0.5 acre of which would be permanently displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070360, Volume I--467 pages, Volume II--276 pages, August 16, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-07/026+5101
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation Plans
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824944?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVERLAND+PASS+NATURAL+GAS+LIQUIDS+PIPELINE%2C+OPAL%2C+WYOMING+TO+HAYES%2C+KANSAS.&rft.title=OVERLAND+PASS+NATURAL+GAS+LIQUIDS+PIPELINE%2C+OPAL%2C+WYOMING+TO+HAYES%2C+KANSAS.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 16, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - OVERLAND PASS NATURAL GAS LIQUIDS PIPELINE, OPAL, WYOMING TO HAYES, KANSAS. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - OVERLAND PASS NATURAL GAS LIQUIDS PIPELINE, OPAL, WYOMING TO HAYES, KANSAS.
AN  - 756824516; 12903-070360_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way for the construction and operation of a 760-mile liquid natural gas (LNG) pipeline in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas of Alaska is proposed. The rights-of-way applicants, Overland Pass Pipeline Company, LLC and William Field's Service Company, LLC, would proposes to lay a pipeline from Opal, Wyoming to Hayes, Kansas. Approximately 16 percent of the length of the pipeline would lie within federal lands in Wyoming and Colorado administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. Under the applicant's proposal, the project would consist of the pipeline and the necessary ancillary aboveground facilities. The pipeline would have a diameter of 14 inches from Opal to Echo Springs in Wyoming and 16 inches from Echo Springs to Conway, Kansas. Ancillary aboveground facilities would include two pump stations at the outset and a third at a later date, seven meter stations, 11 pigging facilities, and 114 mainline valves at a total of 92 sites. New electrical service would be required for the pump and meter stations, but the powerlines would be permitted under a separate permitting process. Construction activities would require a 75-foot construction rights-of-way. Following construction and reclamation, the rights-of-way would have a width of 50 feet. Three alternatives, including the applicant's proposal and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The second action alternative would provide for the same facilities as the applicant's proposal, but the pipeline route along 25 miles of the Green River corridor in Wyoming would be shifted to the south; overall, this route would be 4.8 miles longer than the applicant's proposed route, but it would allow for more pipeline to be co-located with existing pipeline rights-of-way. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would allow for the delivery of natural gas from wellfields in Wyoming to markets in the Midwest, where the demand for natural gas, a relatively clean fossil fuel, has increased substantially in the recent past and is expected to continue to increase indefinitely in the future. Construction activities would employ 325 to 650 workers, and the project would generate $100 million in property and ad valorem tax revenues for local and state governments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During construction, the project would disturb 4,759 acres of grassland, 769 acres of shrubland, 2,472 acres of agricultural land, 61 acres of forest, and 81 acres of wetlands. Approximately 4,619 acres of mostly rangeland and agricultural land would be dedicated to pipeline utility uses for the life of the project. Of this area, 9.6 acres would underlie aboveground facilities. During pipeline operations, activities on rights-of-way not providing sites for aboveground facilities would continued unencumbered. While the recovery of grassland, shrubland, and forest vegetation would begin within two years, full recovery of these communities would require more than five years. Wildlife habitat associated with these vegetative types would be lost temporarily, and aboveground facilities and fences would fragment habitat and impede wildlife movements. Though the pipeline would traverse the habitat of a large number of federally protected species, only sensitive fish species found in the Hams Fork and Black Fork rivers would suffer significant negative impacts to their habitat; these species include the flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, and roundtail chub. Most of the length of the pipeline would traverse soils that have shallow topsoil that is either susceptible to erosion or prone to compaction, resulting in poor reclamation potential. A total of 97 perennial waterbodies would be crossed, 96 of which would be crossed using open-cut trenches. Approximately 81 acres of wetlands would be affected during construction, 0.5 acre of which would be permanently displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070360, Volume I--467 pages, Volume II--276 pages, August 16, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-07/026+5101
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation Plans
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824516?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVERLAND+PASS+NATURAL+GAS+LIQUIDS+PIPELINE%2C+OPAL%2C+WYOMING+TO+HAYES%2C+KANSAS.&rft.title=OVERLAND+PASS+NATURAL+GAS+LIQUIDS+PIPELINE%2C+OPAL%2C+WYOMING+TO+HAYES%2C+KANSAS.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 16, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - OVERLAND PASS NATURAL GAS LIQUIDS PIPELINE, OPAL, WYOMING TO HAYES, KANSAS. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - OVERLAND PASS NATURAL GAS LIQUIDS PIPELINE, OPAL, WYOMING TO HAYES, KANSAS.
AN  - 756824458; 12903-070360_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way for the construction and operation of a 760-mile liquid natural gas (LNG) pipeline in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas of Alaska is proposed. The rights-of-way applicants, Overland Pass Pipeline Company, LLC and William Field's Service Company, LLC, would proposes to lay a pipeline from Opal, Wyoming to Hayes, Kansas. Approximately 16 percent of the length of the pipeline would lie within federal lands in Wyoming and Colorado administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. Under the applicant's proposal, the project would consist of the pipeline and the necessary ancillary aboveground facilities. The pipeline would have a diameter of 14 inches from Opal to Echo Springs in Wyoming and 16 inches from Echo Springs to Conway, Kansas. Ancillary aboveground facilities would include two pump stations at the outset and a third at a later date, seven meter stations, 11 pigging facilities, and 114 mainline valves at a total of 92 sites. New electrical service would be required for the pump and meter stations, but the powerlines would be permitted under a separate permitting process. Construction activities would require a 75-foot construction rights-of-way. Following construction and reclamation, the rights-of-way would have a width of 50 feet. Three alternatives, including the applicant's proposal and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The second action alternative would provide for the same facilities as the applicant's proposal, but the pipeline route along 25 miles of the Green River corridor in Wyoming would be shifted to the south; overall, this route would be 4.8 miles longer than the applicant's proposed route, but it would allow for more pipeline to be co-located with existing pipeline rights-of-way. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would allow for the delivery of natural gas from wellfields in Wyoming to markets in the Midwest, where the demand for natural gas, a relatively clean fossil fuel, has increased substantially in the recent past and is expected to continue to increase indefinitely in the future. Construction activities would employ 325 to 650 workers, and the project would generate $100 million in property and ad valorem tax revenues for local and state governments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During construction, the project would disturb 4,759 acres of grassland, 769 acres of shrubland, 2,472 acres of agricultural land, 61 acres of forest, and 81 acres of wetlands. Approximately 4,619 acres of mostly rangeland and agricultural land would be dedicated to pipeline utility uses for the life of the project. Of this area, 9.6 acres would underlie aboveground facilities. During pipeline operations, activities on rights-of-way not providing sites for aboveground facilities would continued unencumbered. While the recovery of grassland, shrubland, and forest vegetation would begin within two years, full recovery of these communities would require more than five years. Wildlife habitat associated with these vegetative types would be lost temporarily, and aboveground facilities and fences would fragment habitat and impede wildlife movements. Though the pipeline would traverse the habitat of a large number of federally protected species, only sensitive fish species found in the Hams Fork and Black Fork rivers would suffer significant negative impacts to their habitat; these species include the flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, and roundtail chub. Most of the length of the pipeline would traverse soils that have shallow topsoil that is either susceptible to erosion or prone to compaction, resulting in poor reclamation potential. A total of 97 perennial waterbodies would be crossed, 96 of which would be crossed using open-cut trenches. Approximately 81 acres of wetlands would be affected during construction, 0.5 acre of which would be permanently displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070360, Volume I--467 pages, Volume II--276 pages, August 16, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-07/026+5101
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation Plans
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824458?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVERLAND+PASS+NATURAL+GAS+LIQUIDS+PIPELINE%2C+OPAL%2C+WYOMING+TO+HAYES%2C+KANSAS.&rft.title=OVERLAND+PASS+NATURAL+GAS+LIQUIDS+PIPELINE%2C+OPAL%2C+WYOMING+TO+HAYES%2C+KANSAS.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 16, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - OVERLAND PASS NATURAL GAS LIQUIDS PIPELINE, OPAL, WYOMING TO HAYES, KANSAS.
AN  - 36346703; 12903
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way for the construction and operation of a 760-mile liquid natural gas (LNG) pipeline in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas of Alaska is proposed. The rights-of-way applicants, Overland Pass Pipeline Company, LLC and William Field's Service Company, LLC, would proposes to lay a pipeline from Opal, Wyoming to Hayes, Kansas. Approximately 16 percent of the length of the pipeline would lie within federal lands in Wyoming and Colorado administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. Under the applicant's proposal, the project would consist of the pipeline and the necessary ancillary aboveground facilities. The pipeline would have a diameter of 14 inches from Opal to Echo Springs in Wyoming and 16 inches from Echo Springs to Conway, Kansas. Ancillary aboveground facilities would include two pump stations at the outset and a third at a later date, seven meter stations, 11 pigging facilities, and 114 mainline valves at a total of 92 sites. New electrical service would be required for the pump and meter stations, but the powerlines would be permitted under a separate permitting process. Construction activities would require a 75-foot construction rights-of-way. Following construction and reclamation, the rights-of-way would have a width of 50 feet. Three alternatives, including the applicant's proposal and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The second action alternative would provide for the same facilities as the applicant's proposal, but the pipeline route along 25 miles of the Green River corridor in Wyoming would be shifted to the south; overall, this route would be 4.8 miles longer than the applicant's proposed route, but it would allow for more pipeline to be co-located with existing pipeline rights-of-way. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would allow for the delivery of natural gas from wellfields in Wyoming to markets in the Midwest, where the demand for natural gas, a relatively clean fossil fuel, has increased substantially in the recent past and is expected to continue to increase indefinitely in the future. Construction activities would employ 325 to 650 workers, and the project would generate $100 million in property and ad valorem tax revenues for local and state governments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During construction, the project would disturb 4,759 acres of grassland, 769 acres of shrubland, 2,472 acres of agricultural land, 61 acres of forest, and 81 acres of wetlands. Approximately 4,619 acres of mostly rangeland and agricultural land would be dedicated to pipeline utility uses for the life of the project. Of this area, 9.6 acres would underlie aboveground facilities. During pipeline operations, activities on rights-of-way not providing sites for aboveground facilities would continued unencumbered. While the recovery of grassland, shrubland, and forest vegetation would begin within two years, full recovery of these communities would require more than five years. Wildlife habitat associated with these vegetative types would be lost temporarily, and aboveground facilities and fences would fragment habitat and impede wildlife movements. Though the pipeline would traverse the habitat of a large number of federally protected species, only sensitive fish species found in the Hams Fork and Black Fork rivers would suffer significant negative impacts to their habitat; these species include the flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, and roundtail chub. Most of the length of the pipeline would traverse soils that have shallow topsoil that is either susceptible to erosion or prone to compaction, resulting in poor reclamation potential. A total of 97 perennial waterbodies would be crossed, 96 of which would be crossed using open-cut trenches. Approximately 81 acres of wetlands would be affected during construction, 0.5 acre of which would be permanently displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070360, Volume I--467 pages, Volume II--276 pages, August 16, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-07/026+5101
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation Plans
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346703?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVERLAND+PASS+NATURAL+GAS+LIQUIDS+PIPELINE%2C+OPAL%2C+WYOMING+TO+HAYES%2C+KANSAS.&rft.title=OVERLAND+PASS+NATURAL+GAS+LIQUIDS+PIPELINE%2C+OPAL%2C+WYOMING+TO+HAYES%2C+KANSAS.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 16, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005).
AN  - 36341251; 12902
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the integrated activity plan, with particular respect to leasing options for the development of oil and gas reserves, for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) within the North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. The 1998 plan determines the appropriate multiple-use management of 4.6 million acres of public lands in the NPR-A. The amendment would consider leasing portions of land currently closed to oil and gas leasing in the reserve and to develop performance-based measures to protect important surface resources from the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Subsistence resources, with particular reference to those associated with hunting and fishing, are exceedingly important to local residents, including the Inupiat, the aboriginal population of the North Slope. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of August 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The 2005 alternatives offer a range of options with respect to the extend to land to be made available for oil and gas leasing, from 87 percent of the reserve to 100 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the reserve. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation measures for impacts to resources, prescriptive and performance-based measures. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would establish performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) and make 95 percent of the available planning area available. Approximately 211,000 acres in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake could be deferred to provide protection for fish and wildlife and the associated subsistence uses. Performance-based stipulations, patterned after those developed for the northwest portion of the reserve, and ROPs would be used to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources. Stipulations and ROPs would provide clearly defined setbacks, restrictions (including seasonal restrictions), and guidance for all aspects of oil and gas operations. These measures would address impacts to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for federally protected species), cultural and paleontological resources, subsistence uses and access, and scenic and recreational values. Additional seasonal and spatial stipulations would provide maximum protection of environmentally sensitive areas all deep-water areas south of Teshekpuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or nonfish-bearing waters, subsistence use areas throughout the reserve, river setback areas, coastal areas, a designated caribou movement corridor, a southern caribou calving area, and seven lease area in the goose molting area north of Teshekpuk Lake. This draft supplement to the final EIS of is necessitated by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which declared the cumulative impact analysis in the 2005 final EIS to be inadequate. The supplement considers four alternatives, including a No action Alternative (Alternative A). Depending on the alternative selected, 87 to 100 percent of the 4.6-million-acre NPR-A would be opened to oil and gas leasing. In addition, the alternatives offer two types of mitigation for impacts to resources, namely, prescriptive and performance-based. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The North Slope contributes approximately 20 percent of the nation's domestic oil production; additional extraction leases would compensate for declining production in other areas of the North Slope. ROPs and performance-based stipulations afford additional protection to important subsistence and recreational values, habitat, and special status species and help to perpetuate the way of life of the Inupiat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would damage habitat and adversely affect the naturalness of the disturbed areas. More specifically, hydrocarbon resources development would result in the degradation of paleontological sites and water and air quality and the disturbance of vegetation and the habitat for birds, fish, and terrestrial species. The potential for oil spills would attend any alternative involving leasing. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Integrated Activity Plan, see 97-0403D, Volume 21, Number 6 and 98-0188F, Volume 22, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the amended activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 070359, Volume 1--371 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--526 pages and maps, Volume 4--Map Supplement, August 15, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-07/020+1610+930
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Spills
KW  - Oil Spill Analyses
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Colville River
KW  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36341251?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 15, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MOAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36341826; 12900
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 draft 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 070357, Volume 1--189 pages and maps, Volume 2--541, Volume 3--389 pages, August 13, 2007
PY  - 2007
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/36341826?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-13&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 13, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, AND MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP07-44-000 AND CP07-45-000). [Part 4 of 5]
T2  - SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, AND MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP07-44-000 AND CP07-45-000).
AN  - 756824563; 12898-070355_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi is proposed. The facilities to be put in place and operated by the applicant, Southeast Supply Header, LLC, would include 270 miles of pipeline and associated ancillary facilities capable of transporting up to 1.14 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. More specifically, the facilities would include 104 miles of 42-inch pipeline extending southeastward from Richland Parish, Louisiana to Lawrence County, Mississippi; 165 miles of 36-inch pipeline extending southeasterly from Lawrence County to Mobile County, Alabama; 1.7 miles of six-, 16-, 20-, 24-, and 42-inch laterals in Jefferson Davis, Covington, and Forrest counties, Mississippi and Mobile, Alabama; three new compressor stations, one each in Richland Parish Louisiana and Jefferson Davis and George counties, Mississippi; two booster stations, one each in Covington and Forest counties, Mississippi; and other ancillary facilities, including 13 meter and regulator installations, 18 mainline valves, two tap valves, and three pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. If approved, the project would commence implementation in November 2007. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, aboveground facilities site alternatives, pipeline route alternatives and route variations, and deviations from the existing rights-of-way. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline facilities would provide new gas transportation capacity that would significantly enhance access to reliable onshore gas supplies to serve growing demand in the southeastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would affect soils, groundwater, surface water, wetlands, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and ambient air quality and noise levels. The primary impacts would be related to wetlands, waterbodies, land use, and special interest areas. The pipeline would traverse more than 650 surface waterbodies. All but 31 of the crossings would be undertaken using conventional open-cut construction techniques; the remaining crossings would be made using horizontal directional drilling methods. Waterbodies to be crossed include nine major navigable streams, seven National Rivers Inventory-listed streams, five rivers and streams likely to contain habitat for federally protected species, and 10 impaired waterbodies. The pipeline would also traverse 267 wetlands, disturbing 238.8 acres and affecting special status wetlands in some cases. Approximately 102.8 acres of forested wetlands would be cleared during construction, resulting into their conversion into emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands. The project would cross recreational and special interest areas, including Conservation Reserve Program lands, a Nature Conservancy wetland mitigation site known as the Natchez Trace Parkway, Highway 90 (Old Spanish Trail), and lands administered by the Tensas National Wildlife Refuge. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)
JF  - EPA number: 070355, 529 pages, August 10, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0211F
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824563?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+SUPPLY+HEADER+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-44-000+AND+CP07-45-000%29.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+SUPPLY+HEADER+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-44-000+AND+CP07-45-000%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 10, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, AND MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP07-44-000 AND CP07-45-000). [Part 3 of 5]
T2  - SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, AND MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP07-44-000 AND CP07-45-000).
AN  - 756824556; 12898-070355_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi is proposed. The facilities to be put in place and operated by the applicant, Southeast Supply Header, LLC, would include 270 miles of pipeline and associated ancillary facilities capable of transporting up to 1.14 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. More specifically, the facilities would include 104 miles of 42-inch pipeline extending southeastward from Richland Parish, Louisiana to Lawrence County, Mississippi; 165 miles of 36-inch pipeline extending southeasterly from Lawrence County to Mobile County, Alabama; 1.7 miles of six-, 16-, 20-, 24-, and 42-inch laterals in Jefferson Davis, Covington, and Forrest counties, Mississippi and Mobile, Alabama; three new compressor stations, one each in Richland Parish Louisiana and Jefferson Davis and George counties, Mississippi; two booster stations, one each in Covington and Forest counties, Mississippi; and other ancillary facilities, including 13 meter and regulator installations, 18 mainline valves, two tap valves, and three pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. If approved, the project would commence implementation in November 2007. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, aboveground facilities site alternatives, pipeline route alternatives and route variations, and deviations from the existing rights-of-way. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline facilities would provide new gas transportation capacity that would significantly enhance access to reliable onshore gas supplies to serve growing demand in the southeastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would affect soils, groundwater, surface water, wetlands, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and ambient air quality and noise levels. The primary impacts would be related to wetlands, waterbodies, land use, and special interest areas. The pipeline would traverse more than 650 surface waterbodies. All but 31 of the crossings would be undertaken using conventional open-cut construction techniques; the remaining crossings would be made using horizontal directional drilling methods. Waterbodies to be crossed include nine major navigable streams, seven National Rivers Inventory-listed streams, five rivers and streams likely to contain habitat for federally protected species, and 10 impaired waterbodies. The pipeline would also traverse 267 wetlands, disturbing 238.8 acres and affecting special status wetlands in some cases. Approximately 102.8 acres of forested wetlands would be cleared during construction, resulting into their conversion into emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands. The project would cross recreational and special interest areas, including Conservation Reserve Program lands, a Nature Conservancy wetland mitigation site known as the Natchez Trace Parkway, Highway 90 (Old Spanish Trail), and lands administered by the Tensas National Wildlife Refuge. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)
JF  - EPA number: 070355, 529 pages, August 10, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0211F
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824556?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+SUPPLY+HEADER+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-44-000+AND+CP07-45-000%29.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+SUPPLY+HEADER+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-44-000+AND+CP07-45-000%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 10, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, AND MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP07-44-000 AND CP07-45-000). [Part 5 of 5]
T2  - SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, AND MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP07-44-000 AND CP07-45-000).
AN  - 756824503; 12898-070355_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi is proposed. The facilities to be put in place and operated by the applicant, Southeast Supply Header, LLC, would include 270 miles of pipeline and associated ancillary facilities capable of transporting up to 1.14 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. More specifically, the facilities would include 104 miles of 42-inch pipeline extending southeastward from Richland Parish, Louisiana to Lawrence County, Mississippi; 165 miles of 36-inch pipeline extending southeasterly from Lawrence County to Mobile County, Alabama; 1.7 miles of six-, 16-, 20-, 24-, and 42-inch laterals in Jefferson Davis, Covington, and Forrest counties, Mississippi and Mobile, Alabama; three new compressor stations, one each in Richland Parish Louisiana and Jefferson Davis and George counties, Mississippi; two booster stations, one each in Covington and Forest counties, Mississippi; and other ancillary facilities, including 13 meter and regulator installations, 18 mainline valves, two tap valves, and three pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. If approved, the project would commence implementation in November 2007. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, aboveground facilities site alternatives, pipeline route alternatives and route variations, and deviations from the existing rights-of-way. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline facilities would provide new gas transportation capacity that would significantly enhance access to reliable onshore gas supplies to serve growing demand in the southeastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would affect soils, groundwater, surface water, wetlands, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and ambient air quality and noise levels. The primary impacts would be related to wetlands, waterbodies, land use, and special interest areas. The pipeline would traverse more than 650 surface waterbodies. All but 31 of the crossings would be undertaken using conventional open-cut construction techniques; the remaining crossings would be made using horizontal directional drilling methods. Waterbodies to be crossed include nine major navigable streams, seven National Rivers Inventory-listed streams, five rivers and streams likely to contain habitat for federally protected species, and 10 impaired waterbodies. The pipeline would also traverse 267 wetlands, disturbing 238.8 acres and affecting special status wetlands in some cases. Approximately 102.8 acres of forested wetlands would be cleared during construction, resulting into their conversion into emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands. The project would cross recreational and special interest areas, including Conservation Reserve Program lands, a Nature Conservancy wetland mitigation site known as the Natchez Trace Parkway, Highway 90 (Old Spanish Trail), and lands administered by the Tensas National Wildlife Refuge. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)
JF  - EPA number: 070355, 529 pages, August 10, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0211F
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824503?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+SUPPLY+HEADER+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-44-000+AND+CP07-45-000%29.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+SUPPLY+HEADER+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-44-000+AND+CP07-45-000%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 10, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, AND MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP07-44-000 AND CP07-45-000). [Part 2 of 5]
T2  - SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, AND MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP07-44-000 AND CP07-45-000).
AN  - 756824484; 12898-070355_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi is proposed. The facilities to be put in place and operated by the applicant, Southeast Supply Header, LLC, would include 270 miles of pipeline and associated ancillary facilities capable of transporting up to 1.14 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. More specifically, the facilities would include 104 miles of 42-inch pipeline extending southeastward from Richland Parish, Louisiana to Lawrence County, Mississippi; 165 miles of 36-inch pipeline extending southeasterly from Lawrence County to Mobile County, Alabama; 1.7 miles of six-, 16-, 20-, 24-, and 42-inch laterals in Jefferson Davis, Covington, and Forrest counties, Mississippi and Mobile, Alabama; three new compressor stations, one each in Richland Parish Louisiana and Jefferson Davis and George counties, Mississippi; two booster stations, one each in Covington and Forest counties, Mississippi; and other ancillary facilities, including 13 meter and regulator installations, 18 mainline valves, two tap valves, and three pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. If approved, the project would commence implementation in November 2007. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, aboveground facilities site alternatives, pipeline route alternatives and route variations, and deviations from the existing rights-of-way. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline facilities would provide new gas transportation capacity that would significantly enhance access to reliable onshore gas supplies to serve growing demand in the southeastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would affect soils, groundwater, surface water, wetlands, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and ambient air quality and noise levels. The primary impacts would be related to wetlands, waterbodies, land use, and special interest areas. The pipeline would traverse more than 650 surface waterbodies. All but 31 of the crossings would be undertaken using conventional open-cut construction techniques; the remaining crossings would be made using horizontal directional drilling methods. Waterbodies to be crossed include nine major navigable streams, seven National Rivers Inventory-listed streams, five rivers and streams likely to contain habitat for federally protected species, and 10 impaired waterbodies. The pipeline would also traverse 267 wetlands, disturbing 238.8 acres and affecting special status wetlands in some cases. Approximately 102.8 acres of forested wetlands would be cleared during construction, resulting into their conversion into emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands. The project would cross recreational and special interest areas, including Conservation Reserve Program lands, a Nature Conservancy wetland mitigation site known as the Natchez Trace Parkway, Highway 90 (Old Spanish Trail), and lands administered by the Tensas National Wildlife Refuge. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)
JF  - EPA number: 070355, 529 pages, August 10, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0211F
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824484?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+SUPPLY+HEADER+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-44-000+AND+CP07-45-000%29.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+SUPPLY+HEADER+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-44-000+AND+CP07-45-000%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 10, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, AND MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP07-44-000 AND CP07-45-000). [Part 1 of 5]
T2  - SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, AND MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP07-44-000 AND CP07-45-000).
AN  - 756824466; 12898-070355_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi is proposed. The facilities to be put in place and operated by the applicant, Southeast Supply Header, LLC, would include 270 miles of pipeline and associated ancillary facilities capable of transporting up to 1.14 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. More specifically, the facilities would include 104 miles of 42-inch pipeline extending southeastward from Richland Parish, Louisiana to Lawrence County, Mississippi; 165 miles of 36-inch pipeline extending southeasterly from Lawrence County to Mobile County, Alabama; 1.7 miles of six-, 16-, 20-, 24-, and 42-inch laterals in Jefferson Davis, Covington, and Forrest counties, Mississippi and Mobile, Alabama; three new compressor stations, one each in Richland Parish Louisiana and Jefferson Davis and George counties, Mississippi; two booster stations, one each in Covington and Forest counties, Mississippi; and other ancillary facilities, including 13 meter and regulator installations, 18 mainline valves, two tap valves, and three pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. If approved, the project would commence implementation in November 2007. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, aboveground facilities site alternatives, pipeline route alternatives and route variations, and deviations from the existing rights-of-way. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline facilities would provide new gas transportation capacity that would significantly enhance access to reliable onshore gas supplies to serve growing demand in the southeastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would affect soils, groundwater, surface water, wetlands, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and ambient air quality and noise levels. The primary impacts would be related to wetlands, waterbodies, land use, and special interest areas. The pipeline would traverse more than 650 surface waterbodies. All but 31 of the crossings would be undertaken using conventional open-cut construction techniques; the remaining crossings would be made using horizontal directional drilling methods. Waterbodies to be crossed include nine major navigable streams, seven National Rivers Inventory-listed streams, five rivers and streams likely to contain habitat for federally protected species, and 10 impaired waterbodies. The pipeline would also traverse 267 wetlands, disturbing 238.8 acres and affecting special status wetlands in some cases. Approximately 102.8 acres of forested wetlands would be cleared during construction, resulting into their conversion into emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands. The project would cross recreational and special interest areas, including Conservation Reserve Program lands, a Nature Conservancy wetland mitigation site known as the Natchez Trace Parkway, Highway 90 (Old Spanish Trail), and lands administered by the Tensas National Wildlife Refuge. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)
JF  - EPA number: 070355, 529 pages, August 10, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0211F
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824466?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+SUPPLY+HEADER+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-44-000+AND+CP07-45-000%29.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+SUPPLY+HEADER+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-44-000+AND+CP07-45-000%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 10, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PLAN, BANDELIER NATIONAL MONUMENT, LOS ALAMOS AND SANDOVAL COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PLAN, BANDELIER NATIONAL MONUMENT, LOS ALAMOS AND SANDOVAL COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 756824959; 12891-070348_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecological restoration plan within the Bandelier National monument of Los Alamos and Sandoval counties, New Mexico is proposed. The 33,727-acre monument, which includes 23,267 acres of designated wilderness area, lies in north-central New Mexico, 10 miles southwest of Los Alamos and 50 miles northwest of Santa Fe. Historic grazing beginning around 1880, followed by active fire suppression several decades later, effectively removed natural fire disturbance from many areas. Over 100 years without fire resulted in major changes to plant communities, particularly involving the expansion of pinon-juniper woodlands at lower elevations and of ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest at higher elevations. This increased the potential for crown fires in upper elevation ponderosa and mixed conifer forests and decreased herbaceous understory and fine fuels necessary to carry frequent, low-intensity surface fires in lower elevation ponderosa pine savannna and grasslands. Consequently, fire sensitive pinon and juniper invaded these lower elevation systems, eventually suppressing understory growth and enhance widespread mortality of the ponderosa overstory during major droughts. The loss of herbaceous understory in these former grasslands and pine savannas created vast expanses of bare soil vulnerable to runoff and erosion through much of Bandelier's woodland. Accelerated soil erosion poses a significant threat to prehistoric cultural resources, which can be washed away during thunderstorms. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which represents current management conditions, are considered in this final EIS. Specific issues addressed by the action alternatives are related to re-establishment of healthy, sustainable, grass-dominated plant communities within the pinon-juniper woodland, which would help stabilize soils and the cultural resources preserved within them. Both action Alternatives would involve the implementation of annual treatment plans, imposition of seasonal work restrictions to minimize visitor disturbance, the use of minimally disruptive equipment to prevent damage to the habitat of special status species, implementation of special measures to protect archaeological resource sites, implementation of a research and monitoring program along side the management program, and implementation of an public education and consultation component. Since all treatments would occur in designated wilderness, management actions in the pinon-juniper woodland would be subject to the minimum requirement analysis concept at the programmatic and project level to determine the appropriateness of intervention and of the use of hand or motorized tools and equipment. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, would maximize the efficiency of treatment and minimize impacts and the implementation timeframe. Geography and logistics would determine the location and timing of treatment. Crews would complete restoration in a wave-like fashion by working systematically across the monument the southwest to the northeast. The pinon-juniper would be divided into approximately equal combinations of sub-basins, each approximately 800 acres in extent. Field seasons would generally run from September to May and two six- to 10-worker crews would be employed, with treatments being applied at the rate of 50 acres per month per crew. Up to eight, one-acre backcountry camps would be established, and establishment and supply of some camps would require the use of helicopters. Alternative C would use the same treatment strategies as Alternative B; the difference being the implementation timeframe would be extended to 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Both Alternative B and Alternative C would also stabilize soils and cultural resources and would promote healthy sustainable plant communities; the implementation timeframe under Alternative C, however, would allow damage to archaeological sites to continue for a much longer period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance of wilderness areas and the intrusion of equipment, camps, and aircraft into the wilderness would degrade the pristine character of the area and the general value of the wilderness. These impacts would be temporary. Visitor experience would be somewhat degraded in the areas undergoing treatment, but planning would minimize visitor-crew encounters. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0084D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 070348, 361 pages, August 9, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Forests
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Bandelier National Monument
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824959?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ECOLOGICAL+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+BANDELIER+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+LOS+ALAMOS+AND+SANDOVAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=ECOLOGICAL+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+BANDELIER+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+LOS+ALAMOS+AND+SANDOVAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bandelier National Monument, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 9, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PLAN, BANDELIER NATIONAL MONUMENT, LOS ALAMOS AND SANDOVAL COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 36350879; 12891
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecological restoration plan within the Bandelier National monument of Los Alamos and Sandoval counties, New Mexico is proposed. The 33,727-acre monument, which includes 23,267 acres of designated wilderness area, lies in north-central New Mexico, 10 miles southwest of Los Alamos and 50 miles northwest of Santa Fe. Historic grazing beginning around 1880, followed by active fire suppression several decades later, effectively removed natural fire disturbance from many areas. Over 100 years without fire resulted in major changes to plant communities, particularly involving the expansion of pinon-juniper woodlands at lower elevations and of ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest at higher elevations. This increased the potential for crown fires in upper elevation ponderosa and mixed conifer forests and decreased herbaceous understory and fine fuels necessary to carry frequent, low-intensity surface fires in lower elevation ponderosa pine savannna and grasslands. Consequently, fire sensitive pinon and juniper invaded these lower elevation systems, eventually suppressing understory growth and enhance widespread mortality of the ponderosa overstory during major droughts. The loss of herbaceous understory in these former grasslands and pine savannas created vast expanses of bare soil vulnerable to runoff and erosion through much of Bandelier's woodland. Accelerated soil erosion poses a significant threat to prehistoric cultural resources, which can be washed away during thunderstorms. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which represents current management conditions, are considered in this final EIS. Specific issues addressed by the action alternatives are related to re-establishment of healthy, sustainable, grass-dominated plant communities within the pinon-juniper woodland, which would help stabilize soils and the cultural resources preserved within them. Both action Alternatives would involve the implementation of annual treatment plans, imposition of seasonal work restrictions to minimize visitor disturbance, the use of minimally disruptive equipment to prevent damage to the habitat of special status species, implementation of special measures to protect archaeological resource sites, implementation of a research and monitoring program along side the management program, and implementation of an public education and consultation component. Since all treatments would occur in designated wilderness, management actions in the pinon-juniper woodland would be subject to the minimum requirement analysis concept at the programmatic and project level to determine the appropriateness of intervention and of the use of hand or motorized tools and equipment. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, would maximize the efficiency of treatment and minimize impacts and the implementation timeframe. Geography and logistics would determine the location and timing of treatment. Crews would complete restoration in a wave-like fashion by working systematically across the monument the southwest to the northeast. The pinon-juniper would be divided into approximately equal combinations of sub-basins, each approximately 800 acres in extent. Field seasons would generally run from September to May and two six- to 10-worker crews would be employed, with treatments being applied at the rate of 50 acres per month per crew. Up to eight, one-acre backcountry camps would be established, and establishment and supply of some camps would require the use of helicopters. Alternative C would use the same treatment strategies as Alternative B; the difference being the implementation timeframe would be extended to 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Both Alternative B and Alternative C would also stabilize soils and cultural resources and would promote healthy sustainable plant communities; the implementation timeframe under Alternative C, however, would allow damage to archaeological sites to continue for a much longer period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance of wilderness areas and the intrusion of equipment, camps, and aircraft into the wilderness would degrade the pristine character of the area and the general value of the wilderness. These impacts would be temporary. Visitor experience would be somewhat degraded in the areas undergoing treatment, but planning would minimize visitor-crew encounters. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0084D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 070348, 361 pages, August 9, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Forests
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Bandelier National Monument
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350879?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ECOLOGICAL+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+BANDELIER+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+LOS+ALAMOS+AND+SANDOVAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=ECOLOGICAL+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+BANDELIER+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+LOS+ALAMOS+AND+SANDOVAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bandelier National Monument, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 9, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH STEENS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT, STEENS MOUNTAIN, SOUTHEASTERN OREGON. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - NORTH STEENS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT, STEENS MOUNTAIN, SOUTHEASTERN OREGON.
AN  - 756824487; 12888-070345_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a landscape-level ecosystem restoration project within the 336,000-acre North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project Area of the Andrews Resource Area is proposed. The project plan is designed to reduce hazardous fuels created by an unnatural increase in western juniper and to restore appropriate wildfire regimes, native levels of western juniper trees, and appropriate land uses. Six alternatives, including a No Treatment Alternative and an alternative that would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The Partial Treatment Alternative would provide for active fuels reduction and juniper management on private and public lands outside the wilderness areas, wilderness study areas (WSAs), and wild and scenic river (WSR) corridors. Management of naturally fires would still occur in designated subareas of the study area. Annual treatments would encompass 10,000 acres. The Limited Treatment Alternative would incorporate many of the features of the Partial Landscape Alternative. Management of naturally occurring fires would occur in wilderness areas, WSAs, and WSR corridors under this Alternative and would include the use of prescribed fire for western juniper management and fuels reduction and restoration of wildfire regimes. Annual treatments would encompass 15,000 acres. The Full Treatment Alternative would incorporate many of the features of the Partial Treatment and Limited Treatment alternatives. The Full Treatment Alternative would incorporate would include active, landscape-level western juniper management and fuels reduction on private and public land, including wilderness, WSAs, and WSR corridors. Management of naturally occurring fires would occur in designated areas, and management could include prescribed fire, nonmotorized hand tools and nonmechanized transportation for western juniper management and fuels reduction. Additional treatment methods, including the use of other tools following publication of a minimum requirement decision guide, could be considered after a project review occurring on a three- to five-year basis. Annual treatments would encompass 20,000 acres. The preferred alternative, presented for the first time in this final EIS, would implement the Full Treatment Alternative in all portions of the project area, inclosing WSAs, but excluding the Steens Mountain Wilderness; continue the current management regime in the Steels Mountain Wilderness; and evaluate future proposals with respect to the Steens Mountain Wilderness in the light of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reintroduction of the historic fire regime and restoration of a more natural ecosystem would implement provisions for the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 and would conform with the recently completed Resource Management Plan for the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Fuels reduction would reduce the risk of stand destroying wildland fire in the area. The project would restore native habitats in aspen, sagebrush-grassland, old-growth juniper, mountain mahogany, and riparian plant communities, while increasing forage for wild and domestic herbivores. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Only 25 to 65 percent of the upland landscape would be treated under any of the feasible alternatives, with only three to six percent of the landscape being treated in any one implementation season. Under the Limited Treatment and Full Treatment alternatives, prescribed fire impacts could affect designated wilderness, WSAs, and WSR corridors. Mechanical treatments would damage vegetation and disturb soils, resulting in increased runoff and sedimentation of receiving surface waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0225D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 070345, 253 pages, August 6, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PT-07/065+1792
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Fires
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, Project Authorization
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824487?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+STEENS+MOUNTAIN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+STEENS+MOUNTAIN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of The Interior, Bureau of Land Management, West Hines, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH STEENS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT, STEENS MOUNTAIN, SOUTHEASTERN OREGON.
AN  - 36340855; 12888
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a landscape-level ecosystem restoration project within the 336,000-acre North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project Area of the Andrews Resource Area is proposed. The project plan is designed to reduce hazardous fuels created by an unnatural increase in western juniper and to restore appropriate wildfire regimes, native levels of western juniper trees, and appropriate land uses. Six alternatives, including a No Treatment Alternative and an alternative that would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The Partial Treatment Alternative would provide for active fuels reduction and juniper management on private and public lands outside the wilderness areas, wilderness study areas (WSAs), and wild and scenic river (WSR) corridors. Management of naturally fires would still occur in designated subareas of the study area. Annual treatments would encompass 10,000 acres. The Limited Treatment Alternative would incorporate many of the features of the Partial Landscape Alternative. Management of naturally occurring fires would occur in wilderness areas, WSAs, and WSR corridors under this Alternative and would include the use of prescribed fire for western juniper management and fuels reduction and restoration of wildfire regimes. Annual treatments would encompass 15,000 acres. The Full Treatment Alternative would incorporate many of the features of the Partial Treatment and Limited Treatment alternatives. The Full Treatment Alternative would incorporate would include active, landscape-level western juniper management and fuels reduction on private and public land, including wilderness, WSAs, and WSR corridors. Management of naturally occurring fires would occur in designated areas, and management could include prescribed fire, nonmotorized hand tools and nonmechanized transportation for western juniper management and fuels reduction. Additional treatment methods, including the use of other tools following publication of a minimum requirement decision guide, could be considered after a project review occurring on a three- to five-year basis. Annual treatments would encompass 20,000 acres. The preferred alternative, presented for the first time in this final EIS, would implement the Full Treatment Alternative in all portions of the project area, inclosing WSAs, but excluding the Steens Mountain Wilderness; continue the current management regime in the Steels Mountain Wilderness; and evaluate future proposals with respect to the Steens Mountain Wilderness in the light of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reintroduction of the historic fire regime and restoration of a more natural ecosystem would implement provisions for the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 and would conform with the recently completed Resource Management Plan for the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Fuels reduction would reduce the risk of stand destroying wildland fire in the area. The project would restore native habitats in aspen, sagebrush-grassland, old-growth juniper, mountain mahogany, and riparian plant communities, while increasing forage for wild and domestic herbivores. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Only 25 to 65 percent of the upland landscape would be treated under any of the feasible alternatives, with only three to six percent of the landscape being treated in any one implementation season. Under the Limited Treatment and Full Treatment alternatives, prescribed fire impacts could affect designated wilderness, WSAs, and WSR corridors. Mechanical treatments would damage vegetation and disturb soils, resulting in increased runoff and sedimentation of receiving surface waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0225D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 070345, 253 pages, August 6, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PT-07/065+1792
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Fires
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, Project Authorization
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36340855?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+STEENS+MOUNTAIN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+STEENS+MOUNTAIN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of The Interior, Bureau of Land Management, West Hines, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - HUNTING PROGRAM AT THE CAPE COD NATIONAL SEASHORE, BARNSTABLE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - HUNTING PROGRAM AT THE CAPE COD NATIONAL SEASHORE, BARNSTABLE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 756824983; 12884-070341_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the hunting management program for the Cape Cod National Seashore in Barnstable County, Massachusetts is proposed. The 44,000-acre seashore lies within the outer arm of the Cape Cod peninsula. Major species of interest to hunters in the area include deer, pheasant, rabbit, and waterfowl. Pheasant are not native to Cape Cod and must be stocked. The existence of pheasant populations results in the loss of food and damage of habitat for native species and could lead to the spread of disease from pheasant to native birds. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to natural resources, including wildlife special status species, natural communities, and vegetation; customary hunting activities; public use for recreational and educational purposes; socioeconomic values, management and operational concerns with respect to the administration of seashore resources; and issues surrounding nonfederal lands within the seashore. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would provide for an improved hunting program, while Alternative C would eliminate hunting from the seashore. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, would reestablish the pheasant stocking and hunting program, with modifications to the previous program focusing on adaptive management and addressing public concerns. The pheasant stocking component would be phased out eventually. Adaptive management provisions would alter pheasant hunting stipulations according to hunter interest, habitat quality, and potential conflicts. The number of pheasant stocked each year would be determined annually based on hunting pressure and adaptive management objectives. Take and stocking efforts would be monitored to ensure that the number of stocked pheasants would be approximately equal to the take. Take by predators other than hunters would be minimized. Evaluations would occur on five-year basis. Pheasant hunting would be phased out as the numbers of upland game birds increases, providing increased hunting opportunities with respect to native game birds. After 15 years, pheasant stocking and hunting would be discontinued independent of upland game restoration activities. Medications would be withdrawn from pheasants according to the drug's prescribed withdrawal period certifying the health of the birds released. The scope of hunting areas would be simplified and specific hunting areas would be designated, reversing the current policy of allowing hunting in all areas except where specifically prohibited. Areas removed from hunting would decrease the total area available to hunting by 1,546 acres; most of the areas removed from hunting cannot be hunted at present. A total of 29,581 acres would be open to hunting, leaving 14,000 acres on which hunting would be closed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: While retaining most of the existing opportunities, the preferred alternative would add a spring turkey hunting season, manage pheasant adaptively, and increase habitat and hunting opportunities with respect to other upland game birds. The plan would clarify and simplify the areas open and closed to hunting, improve information provided to hunters and non-hunters, and provide improved communications with state wildlife authorities with respect to monitoring. Cultural heritage associated with hunting on the Outer Cape would be preserved and enhanced. Closure of hunting on small parcels and within buffer areas along bike paths would enhance public safety within the seashore. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Phasing out of pheasant populations and hunting would remove this resource, eliminating hunting opportunities on the Outer Cape. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 87-126. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0358D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 070341, 297 pages, August 2, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Birds
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Shores
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Cape Cod National Seashore
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 87-126, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824983?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HUNTING+PROGRAM+AT+THE+CAPE+COD+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+BARNSTABLE+COUNTY%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=HUNTING+PROGRAM+AT+THE+CAPE+COD+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+BARNSTABLE+COUNTY%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Wellfleet, Massachusetts; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHEAST EXPANSION PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, AND MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP07-032-000 AND PF06-031-00). [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - SOUTHEAST EXPANSION PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, AND MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP07-032-000 AND PF06-031-00).
AN  - 756824849; 12883-070340_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity is proposed to allow the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities by Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The Energy Information Administration estimates that total energy consumption in the United States will increase from 100.2 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) per year in 2005 to 131.2 quadrillion Btu per year in 2030. To maintain pace with growing demand, the EIS anticipates that consumption of natural gas in the country will grow from 2.2 trillion cubic feet per year in 2005 to 26.1 trillion cubic feet by 2030. The certificate applicant proposes to construct and operate 110.8 miles of 42-inch gas pipeline from Simpson County, Mississippi to Choctaw County, Alabama; three new compressor stations, to be known as the Delhi, Harrisville, and Destin stations, located in Richland County, Louisiana; Simpson County, Mississippi; and Choctaw county, Alabama, respectively; and other ancillary facilities, including five meter and regulator facilities, eight mainline valves, one side valve, and two pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. The pipeline system would allow the applicant to transport natural gas from producers in eastern Texas and northern Louisiana; the system would have a capacity of 1.272 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. In addition to the proposed actions, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, alternative energy sources, energy conservation, systems alternatives, route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide producers of natural gas in eastern Texas and northern Louisiana a link to eastern market outlets via CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company, located in Perryville, Louisiana. Access to Florida markets would be provided via a pipeline interconnection a system operated by Destin Pipeline, LLC and to northeastern markets via an interconnect with the system operated by Transcontinental Pipe Line Company at Station 85. The proposed facilities would help meet growing energy demands and enhance system reliability by providing increased access to domestic natural gas resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would cross 254 surface waterbodies, of which all but 18 would be crossed using conventional open-cut construction techniques; the remaining 18 crossings would be via horizontal directional drilling. The crossing of two National Rivers Inventory-listed channels, the Strong and Chickasawhay rivers, could affect boating activities for short periods during hydrostatic testing and result in short-term losses of streambank vegetation. The project would affect 129 wetlands, disturbing 88.6 acres; conversion of 47.6 acres of forested wetlands to scrub-shrub wetlands would constitute the most significant loss. Forest land, including timber production land, and special interest areas would be removed from these land uses. Since construction activities would be temporary, most of the impacts resulting from the project would be short-term in effect. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), 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: 070340, 422 pages, August 2, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0210F
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824849?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-032-000+AND+PF06-031-00%29.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-032-000+AND+PF06-031-00%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHEAST EXPANSION PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, AND MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP07-032-000 AND PF06-031-00). [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - SOUTHEAST EXPANSION PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, AND MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP07-032-000 AND PF06-031-00).
AN  - 756824585; 12883-070340_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity is proposed to allow the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities by Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The Energy Information Administration estimates that total energy consumption in the United States will increase from 100.2 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) per year in 2005 to 131.2 quadrillion Btu per year in 2030. To maintain pace with growing demand, the EIS anticipates that consumption of natural gas in the country will grow from 2.2 trillion cubic feet per year in 2005 to 26.1 trillion cubic feet by 2030. The certificate applicant proposes to construct and operate 110.8 miles of 42-inch gas pipeline from Simpson County, Mississippi to Choctaw County, Alabama; three new compressor stations, to be known as the Delhi, Harrisville, and Destin stations, located in Richland County, Louisiana; Simpson County, Mississippi; and Choctaw county, Alabama, respectively; and other ancillary facilities, including five meter and regulator facilities, eight mainline valves, one side valve, and two pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. The pipeline system would allow the applicant to transport natural gas from producers in eastern Texas and northern Louisiana; the system would have a capacity of 1.272 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. In addition to the proposed actions, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, alternative energy sources, energy conservation, systems alternatives, route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide producers of natural gas in eastern Texas and northern Louisiana a link to eastern market outlets via CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company, located in Perryville, Louisiana. Access to Florida markets would be provided via a pipeline interconnection a system operated by Destin Pipeline, LLC and to northeastern markets via an interconnect with the system operated by Transcontinental Pipe Line Company at Station 85. The proposed facilities would help meet growing energy demands and enhance system reliability by providing increased access to domestic natural gas resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would cross 254 surface waterbodies, of which all but 18 would be crossed using conventional open-cut construction techniques; the remaining 18 crossings would be via horizontal directional drilling. The crossing of two National Rivers Inventory-listed channels, the Strong and Chickasawhay rivers, could affect boating activities for short periods during hydrostatic testing and result in short-term losses of streambank vegetation. The project would affect 129 wetlands, disturbing 88.6 acres; conversion of 47.6 acres of forested wetlands to scrub-shrub wetlands would constitute the most significant loss. Forest land, including timber production land, and special interest areas would be removed from these land uses. Since construction activities would be temporary, most of the impacts resulting from the project would be short-term in effect. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), 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: 070340, 422 pages, August 2, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0210F
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824585?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-032-000+AND+PF06-031-00%29.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-032-000+AND+PF06-031-00%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - HUNTING PROGRAM AT THE CAPE COD NATIONAL SEASHORE, BARNSTABLE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - HUNTING PROGRAM AT THE CAPE COD NATIONAL SEASHORE, BARNSTABLE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 756824523; 12884-070341_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the hunting management program for the Cape Cod National Seashore in Barnstable County, Massachusetts is proposed. The 44,000-acre seashore lies within the outer arm of the Cape Cod peninsula. Major species of interest to hunters in the area include deer, pheasant, rabbit, and waterfowl. Pheasant are not native to Cape Cod and must be stocked. The existence of pheasant populations results in the loss of food and damage of habitat for native species and could lead to the spread of disease from pheasant to native birds. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to natural resources, including wildlife special status species, natural communities, and vegetation; customary hunting activities; public use for recreational and educational purposes; socioeconomic values, management and operational concerns with respect to the administration of seashore resources; and issues surrounding nonfederal lands within the seashore. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would provide for an improved hunting program, while Alternative C would eliminate hunting from the seashore. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, would reestablish the pheasant stocking and hunting program, with modifications to the previous program focusing on adaptive management and addressing public concerns. The pheasant stocking component would be phased out eventually. Adaptive management provisions would alter pheasant hunting stipulations according to hunter interest, habitat quality, and potential conflicts. The number of pheasant stocked each year would be determined annually based on hunting pressure and adaptive management objectives. Take and stocking efforts would be monitored to ensure that the number of stocked pheasants would be approximately equal to the take. Take by predators other than hunters would be minimized. Evaluations would occur on five-year basis. Pheasant hunting would be phased out as the numbers of upland game birds increases, providing increased hunting opportunities with respect to native game birds. After 15 years, pheasant stocking and hunting would be discontinued independent of upland game restoration activities. Medications would be withdrawn from pheasants according to the drug's prescribed withdrawal period certifying the health of the birds released. The scope of hunting areas would be simplified and specific hunting areas would be designated, reversing the current policy of allowing hunting in all areas except where specifically prohibited. Areas removed from hunting would decrease the total area available to hunting by 1,546 acres; most of the areas removed from hunting cannot be hunted at present. A total of 29,581 acres would be open to hunting, leaving 14,000 acres on which hunting would be closed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: While retaining most of the existing opportunities, the preferred alternative would add a spring turkey hunting season, manage pheasant adaptively, and increase habitat and hunting opportunities with respect to other upland game birds. The plan would clarify and simplify the areas open and closed to hunting, improve information provided to hunters and non-hunters, and provide improved communications with state wildlife authorities with respect to monitoring. Cultural heritage associated with hunting on the Outer Cape would be preserved and enhanced. Closure of hunting on small parcels and within buffer areas along bike paths would enhance public safety within the seashore. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Phasing out of pheasant populations and hunting would remove this resource, eliminating hunting opportunities on the Outer Cape. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 87-126. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0358D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 070341, 297 pages, August 2, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Birds
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Shores
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Cape Cod National Seashore
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 87-126, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824523?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HUNTING+PROGRAM+AT+THE+CAPE+COD+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+BARNSTABLE+COUNTY%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=HUNTING+PROGRAM+AT+THE+CAPE+COD+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+BARNSTABLE+COUNTY%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Wellfleet, Massachusetts; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - HUNTING PROGRAM AT THE CAPE COD NATIONAL SEASHORE, BARNSTABLE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36350856; 12884
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the hunting management program for the Cape Cod National Seashore in Barnstable County, Massachusetts is proposed. The 44,000-acre seashore lies within the outer arm of the Cape Cod peninsula. Major species of interest to hunters in the area include deer, pheasant, rabbit, and waterfowl. Pheasant are not native to Cape Cod and must be stocked. The existence of pheasant populations results in the loss of food and damage of habitat for native species and could lead to the spread of disease from pheasant to native birds. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to natural resources, including wildlife special status species, natural communities, and vegetation; customary hunting activities; public use for recreational and educational purposes; socioeconomic values, management and operational concerns with respect to the administration of seashore resources; and issues surrounding nonfederal lands within the seashore. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would provide for an improved hunting program, while Alternative C would eliminate hunting from the seashore. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, would reestablish the pheasant stocking and hunting program, with modifications to the previous program focusing on adaptive management and addressing public concerns. The pheasant stocking component would be phased out eventually. Adaptive management provisions would alter pheasant hunting stipulations according to hunter interest, habitat quality, and potential conflicts. The number of pheasant stocked each year would be determined annually based on hunting pressure and adaptive management objectives. Take and stocking efforts would be monitored to ensure that the number of stocked pheasants would be approximately equal to the take. Take by predators other than hunters would be minimized. Evaluations would occur on five-year basis. Pheasant hunting would be phased out as the numbers of upland game birds increases, providing increased hunting opportunities with respect to native game birds. After 15 years, pheasant stocking and hunting would be discontinued independent of upland game restoration activities. Medications would be withdrawn from pheasants according to the drug's prescribed withdrawal period certifying the health of the birds released. The scope of hunting areas would be simplified and specific hunting areas would be designated, reversing the current policy of allowing hunting in all areas except where specifically prohibited. Areas removed from hunting would decrease the total area available to hunting by 1,546 acres; most of the areas removed from hunting cannot be hunted at present. A total of 29,581 acres would be open to hunting, leaving 14,000 acres on which hunting would be closed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: While retaining most of the existing opportunities, the preferred alternative would add a spring turkey hunting season, manage pheasant adaptively, and increase habitat and hunting opportunities with respect to other upland game birds. The plan would clarify and simplify the areas open and closed to hunting, improve information provided to hunters and non-hunters, and provide improved communications with state wildlife authorities with respect to monitoring. Cultural heritage associated with hunting on the Outer Cape would be preserved and enhanced. Closure of hunting on small parcels and within buffer areas along bike paths would enhance public safety within the seashore. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Phasing out of pheasant populations and hunting would remove this resource, eliminating hunting opportunities on the Outer Cape. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 87-126. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0358D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 070341, 297 pages, August 2, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Birds
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Shores
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Cape Cod National Seashore
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 87-126, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350856?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HUNTING+PROGRAM+AT+THE+CAPE+COD+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+BARNSTABLE+COUNTY%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=HUNTING+PROGRAM+AT+THE+CAPE+COD+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+BARNSTABLE+COUNTY%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Wellfleet, Massachusetts; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHEAST EXPANSION PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, AND MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP07-032-000 AND PF06-031-00).
AN  - 36350789; 12883
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity is proposed to allow the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities by Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The Energy Information Administration estimates that total energy consumption in the United States will increase from 100.2 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) per year in 2005 to 131.2 quadrillion Btu per year in 2030. To maintain pace with growing demand, the EIS anticipates that consumption of natural gas in the country will grow from 2.2 trillion cubic feet per year in 2005 to 26.1 trillion cubic feet by 2030. The certificate applicant proposes to construct and operate 110.8 miles of 42-inch gas pipeline from Simpson County, Mississippi to Choctaw County, Alabama; three new compressor stations, to be known as the Delhi, Harrisville, and Destin stations, located in Richland County, Louisiana; Simpson County, Mississippi; and Choctaw county, Alabama, respectively; and other ancillary facilities, including five meter and regulator facilities, eight mainline valves, one side valve, and two pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. The pipeline system would allow the applicant to transport natural gas from producers in eastern Texas and northern Louisiana; the system would have a capacity of 1.272 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. In addition to the proposed actions, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, alternative energy sources, energy conservation, systems alternatives, route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide producers of natural gas in eastern Texas and northern Louisiana a link to eastern market outlets via CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company, located in Perryville, Louisiana. Access to Florida markets would be provided via a pipeline interconnection a system operated by Destin Pipeline, LLC and to northeastern markets via an interconnect with the system operated by Transcontinental Pipe Line Company at Station 85. The proposed facilities would help meet growing energy demands and enhance system reliability by providing increased access to domestic natural gas resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would cross 254 surface waterbodies, of which all but 18 would be crossed using conventional open-cut construction techniques; the remaining 18 crossings would be via horizontal directional drilling. The crossing of two National Rivers Inventory-listed channels, the Strong and Chickasawhay rivers, could affect boating activities for short periods during hydrostatic testing and result in short-term losses of streambank vegetation. The project would affect 129 wetlands, disturbing 88.6 acres; conversion of 47.6 acres of forested wetlands to scrub-shrub wetlands would constitute the most significant loss. Forest land, including timber production land, and special interest areas would be removed from these land uses. Since construction activities would be temporary, most of the impacts resulting from the project would be short-term in effect. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), 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: 070340, 422 pages, August 2, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0210F
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Timber
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350789?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-032-000+AND+PF06-031-00%29.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-032-000+AND+PF06-031-00%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 2, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve; Alaska; draft supplemental integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; Volume 2, Chapter 4, Sections 4.1-4.6
AN  - 51288921; 2008-028789
JF  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve; Alaska; draft supplemental integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; Volume 2, Chapter 4, Sections 4.1-4.6
Y1  - 2007/08//
PY  - 2007
DA  - August 2007
SP  - 614
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - pollutants
KW  - natural gas
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve
KW  - public policy
KW  - impact statements
KW  - pollution
KW  - petroleum
KW  - vegetation
KW  - environmental analysis
KW  - oil and gas fields
KW  - biota
KW  - human ecology
KW  - ground water
KW  - environmental management
KW  - conservation
KW  - land management
KW  - economics
KW  - ecology
KW  - Alaska
KW  - water resources
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51288921?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve%3B+Alaska%3B+draft+supplemental+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+Volume+2%2C+Chapter+4%2C+Sections+4.1-4.6&rft.title=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve%3B+Alaska%3B+draft+supplemental+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+Volume+2%2C+Chapter+4%2C+Sections+4.1-4.6&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2008-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Bureau of Land Management, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 22 tables
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; draft; supplemental integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; Volume IV, Maps
AN  - 51252858; 2008-066273
JF  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; draft; supplemental integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; Volume IV, Maps
Y1  - 2007/08//
PY  - 2007
DA  - August 2007
KW  - Type: oil and gas maps
KW  - United States
KW  - North Slope
KW  - natural gas
KW  - impact statements
KW  - petroleum
KW  - environmental analysis
KW  - pipelines
KW  - oil and gas maps
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - maps
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - land management
KW  - report
KW  - economic geology maps
KW  - ecology
KW  - Alaska
KW  - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51252858?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%3B+draft%3B+supplemental+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+Volume+IV%2C+Maps&rft.title=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%3B+draft%3B+supplemental+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+Volume+IV%2C+Maps&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2008-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK, United States
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve Alaska; draft supplement; integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; Volume 3, Chapter 4, Sections 4.7-4.12, Chapter 5, Appendices, bibliography, glossary, acronyms
AN  - 51248618; 2008-069627
JF  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve Alaska; draft supplement; integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; Volume 3, Chapter 4, Sections 4.7-4.12, Chapter 5, Appendices, bibliography, glossary, acronyms
Y1  - 2007/08//
PY  - 2007
DA  - August 2007
KW  - United States
KW  - public policy
KW  - impact statements
KW  - environmental analysis
KW  - bibliography
KW  - environmental management
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - conservation
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - land management
KW  - report
KW  - ecology
KW  - Alaska
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51248618?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve+Alaska%3B+draft+supplement%3B+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+Volume+3%2C+Chapter+4%2C+Sections+4.7-4.12%2C+Chapter+5%2C+Appendices%2C+bibliography%2C+glossary%2C+acronyms&rft.title=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve+Alaska%3B+draft+supplement%3B+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+Volume+3%2C+Chapter+4%2C+Sections+4.7-4.12%2C+Chapter+5%2C+Appendices%2C+bibliography%2C+glossary%2C+acronyms&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2008-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 1799
N1  - Availability - U. S. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 19 tables, sketch maps
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes 11 appendices
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve Alaska; supplemental integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; Volume I, Abstract, executive summary, chapters 1-3
AN  - 51231257; 2008-076022
JF  - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve Alaska; supplemental integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement; Volume I, Abstract, executive summary, chapters 1-3
Y1  - 2007/08//
PY  - 2007
DA  - August 2007
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - petroleum exploration
KW  - human activity
KW  - public policy
KW  - impact statements
KW  - petroleum
KW  - vegetation
KW  - environmental analysis
KW  - human ecology
KW  - environmental management
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - wetlands
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - land management
KW  - report
KW  - ecology
KW  - Alaska
KW  - 22:Environmental geology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51231257?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve+Alaska%3B+supplemental+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+Volume+I%2C+Abstract%2C+executive+summary%2C+chapters+1-3&rft.title=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve+Alaska%3B+supplemental+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement%3B+Volume+I%2C+Abstract%2C+executive+summary%2C+chapters+1-3&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2008-01-01
N1  - Availability - U. S. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 22 tables
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GOLDEN SUNLIGHT MINE PIT RECLAMATION, JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1998).
AN  - 36346738; 12871
AB  - PURPOSE: The continued operation of an open-pit gold mine by the Golden Sunlight Mines, Inc. (GSM), and the expansion of the present open-pit mine, located in central Montana, are proposed. The mine is located on public and private lands along the southern flank of Bull Mountain, five miles northeast of Whitehall. Mineral exploration and small-scale underground mining were conducted at the site from 1890 until 1958. Mining resumed at the site in 1983, although these new mining operations involved the use of cyanide vat leaching and other processes that would economically extract ore from low-grade, large-tonnage resources. In September 1994, a Montana District Court ruled that an expansion of the mine could not proceed unless an EIS was prepared. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of November 1997. The proposed action would allow mining to continue in the area until the year 2006 and would expand the pit, waste rock dump areas, and buttress area. Sheep Rock Creek would be diverted into a tributary of Conrow Creek to prevent water from contacting acid-generating waste rock. The mine's permit area would expand to include an additional 1,054 acres, and tonnage processed at the mine would increase from 34.1 million tons to 55 million tons. The final EIS of April 1998, which was issued in an abbreviated format, presents corrections and revisions to the draft EIS as well as public comments and agency responses. This final supplement to the final EIS addresses the upshot of a court decision requiring GSM to include backfilling of the pit in its reclamation plan. However, the Bureau of Land Management subsequently informed state authorities that backfilling the pit could result in unnecessary degradation of public lands and that the Bureau must prepare this supplement and approve the modification of the reclamation plan. GSM proposed a partial pit backfill in December 2002. Key issues addressed include technical, environmental, socioeconomic, and project economics issues. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. Under the preferred alternative, known as the Underground Sump Alternative, no backfill would be placed in the pit and the underground workings would be improved and maintained as a sump for pit dewatering. The alternative would maintain a hydrologic connection between the pit bottom and the underground sump located 25 to 75 feet below the pit. Water would be pumped from the sump, such that water would be collected in the sump and pump it to a permanent water treatment plant. By maintaining the groundwater level as low as possible in the backfill, no water would be allowed to pond in the pit bottom. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would forestall closure of the mine and provide continued employment to its work force of 208 workers. If the mine were to continue operating through 2011, it would contribute significant economic benefits to the area. No backfill would be placed in the pit to settle and no wells to damage. The mine operations and the backfill system would provide 750 jobs and contribute significantly to annual tax revenues. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some portions of the pit highwall would be subject to raveling, talus formation, erosion, and limited sloughing. Localized failure of ceiling and walls in seep and fault areas could affect access to the dewatering system and cause subsidence. Rock fall from the ceiling and walls of the underground workings could damage the dewatering system. Sludge management would require an additional 32 gallons per minute of pit water. Groundwater levels around the pit would be drawn down permanently, affecting springs and wetlands in the area. Workers would be exposed to some occupational safety hazards due to the operation of the dewatering system as well as due to raveling and slouging. Approximately 158 acres of mule deer habitat would be lost. Project structures would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS on mine pit reclamation, see 05-0316D, Volume 29, Number 3. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the expansion of the Golden Sunlight Mine, see 97-0409D, Volume 21, Number 6 and 98-0083F, Volume 22, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 070328, Record of Decision--21 pages, Final EIS--574 pages, July 30, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Acids
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Crushing and Grinding
KW  - Employment
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Mining [Sts]Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Waste Disposal
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Montana
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Program Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346738?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLDEN+SUNLIGHT+MINE+PIT+RECLAMATION%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1998%29.&rft.title=GOLDEN+SUNLIGHT+MINE+PIT+RECLAMATION%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1998%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Butte, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
AN  - 36340699; 12822
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Saguaro National Park in the Tucson vicinity of Arizona. The park encompasses 91,445 acres within two units: the 24,034-acre Tucson Mountain Unit located west of metropolitan Tucson and the 67,441-acre Ricon Mountain District east of Tucson. The last general management plan for the park was completed in 1988, since when visitor use patterns and types have changed, the population of the city of Tucson has doubled, and an additional 7,577 acres have been added to the park. Each of these changes has implications for how visitors access and use the national park and the facilities needed to support those uses, how resources are managed, and how the National Park Service manages its operations. Issues of interest in the planning process, identified during scoping, include those related to natural resources, cultural resources, visitor use and experience, the local socioeconomic situation, transportation facilities, and park operations. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would emphasize protection of the park's ecological processes and biological diversity by reducing fragmentation of wildlife and plant habitats and protecting wildlife travel corridors. Visitation would be managed and redirected when necessary to protect sensitive natural resources and minimize impacts to resources. Basic facilities for visitor safety and services would be provided inside the park. Appropriate access would be provided for visitor convenience in entering the park and access areas of interest within park boundaries. The plan would include removal and relocation of the Civilian Aeronautical Administration building, the removal and reconstruction of the corral and park housing at Madrona, reduction of equipment and personnel at Manning Camp, and installation of new exhibits and other interpretative media in the Rincon Mountain visitor center and at other key locations around the park. Alternative 3 would provide a wider range of visitor opportunities than Alternative 2, though recreational developments would be compatible with the preservation of park resources and wilderness characteristics. Initial capital costs, annual operation and maintenance costs, and replacement costs under the preferred alternative are estimated at $9.3 million, $5.3 million, and $445,534, respectively; total life cycle costs are estimated at $15.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would clearly define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved in the park; provide a framework for park managers to use when making decisions concerning the means of best protecting park resources, promulgate a diverse range of visitor experiences, and select and manage facilities; and ensure that this foundation for decision-making has been developed in consultation with interested stakeholders and adopted by the federal park leadership. Implementing the alternative would result in moderate to major benefits for the visitor experience, resulting from enhanced protection of park resources and unique park opportunity values. The plan would provide for outstanding primitive hiking and camping opportunities for solitude. Increased visitation would boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased visitation would place stress on recreation facilities and pristine natural resources, including wilderness areas, and increase user conflicts on trails and commuter traffic along park roads. Accidental damage to cultural resources and vandalism would also increase due to increased visitation. Facilities construction would displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and disturb soils, resulting in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. Demolition of the Civilian Aeronautical Administration building would result in the loss of an historically significant structure. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 94-567, and Public Law 102-61.
JF  - EPA number: 070322, 397 pages, July 27, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-35
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Saguaro National Park
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Program Authorization
KW  - Public Law 94-567, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 102-61, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36340699?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAGUARO+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SAGUARO+NATIONAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Tucson, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 27, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SAN LUIS RIO COLORADO PROJECT, YUMA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
AN  - 36346499; 12820
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit and related federal actions for the construction and operation of a double-circuited 500-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line through Yuma County, Arizona and across the United States-Mexico international border are proposed. Analyses regarding power requirements show that additional power sources will be required in the southwestern U.S. and the contiguous areas of Mexico by 2009 at the latest to deal with power peak demands. The U.S. portion of the proposed project would lie within Yuma County, Arizona and interconnect with the Western Power Authority's (Western) regional power grid. The U.S. and Mexican applicants (respectively, North Branch Resources, LLC and Generadora del Disierto, S.A. de C.V. (GDD), both of which are wholly owned subsidiaries of North Branch Holding, LLC) would construct and operate a 500-kV line extending from the proposed San Luis Rio Colorado (SLRC) Power Center in Sonora, Mexico, interconnect with Western's existing Gila Substation, and continue to the Arizona Public Service Company's North Gila Substation. The project would require expansion of the Gila Substation and additional equipment at the North Gila Substation. The portion of the transmission line within the Yuma County would extend 25.7 miles, including 21 miles from the international border to the Gila Substation and 4.7 miles from the Gila Substation to the North Gila Substation. The line would traverse lands administered and/or owned by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of the Navy, the state of Arizona, and private individuals. In Mexico, GDD plans to construct ad operate the SLRC Power Center, a new 550-megawatt nominal (605-megawatt peaking) natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle power plant located approximately three miles east of San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora, Mexico, and approximately one mile south of the international border. While the SLRC Power Center is not is not subject to U.S. regulatory requirements, this EIS process considers impacts within the U.S. of the center's operations. An additional 500-kV line, extending approximately one mile, would extend from the SLRC Power Center to the proposed transmission components at the U.S.-Mexico border. In addition to the applicants' proposal, this final EIS addresses a route alternative, a 230-kV line alternative, and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would transmit electricity into the Yuma Transmission Import Constraint Area, identified as a load pocket (area consuming electricity) within Arizona. The additional power would help rectify insufficient local generation problems affecting the area, which would be relieved of the need to rely on existing small, older, less efficient, and pollutant-generating power facilities in the Yuma area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the disturbance of 134.1 acres for transmission line structures and five acres for cable-pulling sites. Permanent land disturbance would displace 20 acres at the Gila Substation and 0.76 acres for proposed transmission line structures, which will lie along existing rights-of-way. Approximately 0.15 acres of habitat within a management area for the federally protected flat-tailed horned lizard would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Orders 10485 and 12038, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0509D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 070320, Final EIS--298 pages, Draft EIS--327 pages, July 26, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0395
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Executive Order 10485, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 12038, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346499?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-07-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+LUIS+RIO+COLORADO+PROJECT%2C+YUMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SAN+LUIS+RIO+COLORADO+PROJECT%2C+YUMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 26, 2007
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.
AN  - 36340820; 12875
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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regimes for the six RMAs, are considered in this draft EIS. Six subalternatives, which represent variations of the three action alternatives, are also analyzed in this EIS. Key features of the four 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 (Alternative 2) 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.
JF  - EPA number: 070332, Volume I--537 pages, Volume II--451 pages, Volume III--626 pages, July 21, 2007
PY  - 2007
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  - 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/36340820?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-07-21&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.&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.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 21, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL AREA, GUNNISON AND MONTROSE COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 36343495; 12807
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 draft 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 .
JF  - EPA number: 070306, 320 pages, July 14, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-28
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/36343495?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-07-14&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; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 14, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LIMESTONE HILLS TRAINING AREA LAND WITHDRAWAL, BUTTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA AND FORT HARRISON, BROADWATER COUNTY, MONTANA.
AN  - 36345507; 12801
AB  - PURPOSE: The withdrawal of 18,644 acres of federal lands within the Limestone Hills Training Area (LHTA) in Broadwater County, Montana from administration by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Butte Management Area is proposed for use by the Montana Army National Guard's to assist in the training mission of the Guard's Fort Harrison installation. The lands to be withdrawn are critical to the National Guard's military readiness. The LHTA, which lies near Townsend, has supported the military mission of the National Guard since the 1950s. In 1984, the BLM granted the National Guard a 30-year rights-of-way to use federal land within the LHTA for military purposes under specific terms and conditions. The rights-of-way grant expires on March 26, 2014. To continue the military use of these public lands, the Army must apply to withdraw federal land in the LHTA in accordance with the Engle Act of 1958. Under the terms of the land withdrawal, the LHTA would continue to be used to train National Guard and Reserve forces; to provide joint service training for the U.S. Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy; to provide a venue for the inactive duty training gunnery program to meet operating requirements; to assist logistical support to units conducting inactive duty training and annual training; to provide small arms and crew-served weapons qualification ranges and facilities; to provide maneuver areas suitable for training infantry and other personnel in conducting dismounted exercises; to site organizational support maintenance facilities for units conducting training; and to provide training areas and facilities to local law enforcement agencies, civil defense organizations, public education institutions, and other civilian activities that do not interfere with existing military training activities. Four alternatives are considered in this draft EIS, including the proposed action, a preferred alternative, and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The continued withdrawal of BLM-administered lands within the LHTA would allow Fort Harrison to continue to meet its assigned mission to administer, train, and deploy soldiers of the U.S. Army, other military services, and allied nations to respond to state and national emergencies and overseas crises. The LHTA would continue to provide a challenging, realistic training environment necessary for retaining quality soldiers by providing world-class training at both the individual and unit level. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Military training maneuvers within the LHTA would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and result in soil and water contamination due to the explosion of ordnance. Grazing would be severely restricted in areas where maneuvers occur regularly. LEGAL MANDATES: Engle Act of 1958 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070300, 376 pages, July 12, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Butte Resource Management Area
KW  - Fort Harrison
KW  - Montana
KW  - Engle Act of 1958, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36345507?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-07-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LIMESTONE+HILLS+TRAINING+AREA+LAND+WITHDRAWAL%2C+BUTTE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA+AND+FORT+HARRISON%2C+BROADWATER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=LIMESTONE+HILLS+TRAINING+AREA+LAND+WITHDRAWAL%2C+BUTTE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA+AND+FORT+HARRISON%2C+BROADWATER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Butte, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 12, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEMMERER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, LINCOLN, SWEETWATER, AND UNITA COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 36341338; 12788
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 draft 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 070286, Draft EIS--612 pages, Appendices--198 pages, July 3, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-07/016+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/36341338?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-07-03&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 3, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION: RAIL LINE BETWEEN LEBAN AND SALINA, SANPETE, SEVIER, AND JUAB COUNTIES, UTAH (DOCKET NO. 34075).
AN  - 36341413; 12774
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 43-mile rail line in Sanpete, Sevier, and Juab counties, Utah is proposed by the Six Counties Association of Governments to allow for the efficient transfer of coal from Leban to a coal transfer facility near Salina. The project, known as the Central Utah Rail Project, would begin at the connection with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline track near Juab, 16 miles south of Nephi, and terminate at a point 0.5 mile southwest of Salina. A portion of the rail line would cross segments of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, requiring the Bureau to grant a right-of-way to the applicant. The rail line would provide access to local industries, primarily a coal mine owned by Southern Utah Fuel Company located 30 miles east of Salina. Due to an absence of rail access, these industries currently move all goods by truck. Other than Juab's access to the nearby UPRR line, no rail service exists in this part of Utah. Business in the counties of Sanpete and Sevier must rely exclusively on trucks for freight transportation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The applicant's proposal, which is the preferred alternative (Alternative B), would provide for a rail line running in a north-south direction. The line would pass near the Sevier Bridge Reservoir through portions of Juab County and continue south through a valley east of the Pahvant Range and the Valley Mountains and west of the San Pitch Mountains (also known as the Gunnison Plateau). The alignment would cross Sevier Bridge Reservoir at Yuba Narrows, south of the Yuba Lake Recreation Area. The alignment would continue southward along the western edge of a marshy area south of the reservoir. South of the reservoir, the line would continue along the western edge of the agricultural areas in Sevier County roughly parallel to, but east of, a existing high-voltage transmission line. It would then veer to the south-southeast and then south toward the Sanpete-Sevier county line and eventually arrive at the Salina industrial park. The line would consist of a single track, except at the northern interchange yard south of Nephi near Juab and the load-out facility in Salina. The line would carry one round trip per day, involving 100 to 110 cars. In addition to coal shipments, the applicant anticipates the railway to carry smaller quantities of petroleum products, lumber, nonmetallic minerals, wallboard, and plaster. Alternative C would have a slightly different alignment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed railway would allow industries to access rail transportation for bulk movement of commodities to and from the area, providing a more cost-efficient means of freight movement. The rail line would decrease freight transportation energy use in the corridor from 2,832 million British thermal units (Btu) per day to 1,301 million Btu per day. The line would also reduce the level of heavy truck traffic on state highways and city streets not designed for such vehicles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in the displacement of 538 acres of mixed-vegetation habitat, 43.1 acres of irrigated farmland, 8.9 acres of non-irrigated farmland, and 4.23 animal unit months of livestock forage. The project would disturb 163.5 acres of wetlands, 16 acres of floodplain, and 174 acres of groundwater recharge area. The line would cross 85 ephemeral drainages. Approximately 1.3 million cubic yards of borrow material would be required. Rights-of-way development would affect 27 archaeological sites, 16 historic sites, and two multi-component sites. Eleven acres of the Yuba Lake Recreation Area would be affected. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Termination Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-88)
JF  - EPA number: 070272, 871 pages, June 29, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Termination Act of 1995, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36341413?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-06-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+EXEMPTION%3A+RAIL+LINE+BETWEEN+LEBAN+AND+SALINA%2C+SANPETE%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+JUAB+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28DOCKET+NO.+34075%29.&rft.title=CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+EXEMPTION%3A+RAIL+LINE+BETWEEN+LEBAN+AND+SALINA%2C+SANPETE%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+JUAB+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28DOCKET+NO.+34075%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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 29, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LOWER YUBA RIVER ACCORD, YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36350814; 12771
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Lower Yuba River Accord is proposed to resolve water supply conflicts in Yuba County, California. The Yuba River drains 1,339 square miles of western Sierra Nevada slope, including portions of Sierra, Placer, Yuba, and Nevada counties. The river has been the subject of controversy since the 1850s, when hydraulic mining and other destructive mining techniques took a significant toll on the river. In the late 1960s, flood control works and flow diversion structures proliferated. Currently, the Yuba is still one of the state's most important rivers, providing habitat for some of the Central Valley's last wild, native Chinook salmon and steelhead runs. Conflicting roles related to fishery resources, water supply reliability, flood concerns, and surface and groundwater management associated with the river have resulted in ongoing water rights litigation between environmental and water supply interests. Yuba River water is allocated for Yuba fisheries enhancement, local water supply, and out-of-county environmental and consumptive issues. In addition, a revenue stream must be crafted to pay for the proposed accord, which would encompass three agreements, one each addressing fisheries, conjunctive water use, and long-term water transfers. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to surface water supply and management, groundwater resources, power production and energy consumption, flood control, water quality, fisheries and other aquatic resources, terrestrial resources, recreation, visual resources, cultural resources, air quality, land use, socioeconomics, growth inducement, environmental justice, and Indian Trust Assets. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the Yuba Accord would be established and implemented. Under the proposed action the three abovementioned agreements would be established. The fisheries agreement would establish higher minimum instream flows during most months of most water years. To assure that Yuba County's water supply reliability would not be reduced by higher minimum instream flows, the Yuba County Water Authority (YCWA) and its participating member units would implement conjunctive use agreements establishing a comprehensive conjunctive use program that would integrate the surface water and groundwater supplies of the local irrigation districts and mutual water companies that the YWCA serves. Under the water purchase agreement, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources would enter into an agreement to purchase water from YCWA for use in the Environmental Water Account Program, which would address water allocation to maintain and enhance fisheries, and the Central Valley Project, which address irrigation needs in the region. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Integration of surface water and groundwater supplies would allow YCWA to increase the efficiency of its industrial, municipal, and agricultural water management. Adequate water allocations would be ensured for regional agricultural interests, maintaining the traditional economic of the Central Valley. The fisheries agreement would insure adequate flows to support steelhead and Chinook salmon runs, protecting federally listed endangered species and providing subsistence resources for local Native American tribes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Water user conflicts would continue through to a lesser extend and degree. Removal of water for irrigation and storage for flood control purposes would occasionally conflict with allocations of water for fisheries enhancement purposes. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 070269, Draft EIS--2,287 pages, Appendices--612 pages, June 27, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-34
KW  - Dams
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - California
KW  - Yuba River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350814?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-06-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+YUBA+RIVER+ACCORD%2C+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOWER+YUBA+RIVER+ACCORD%2C+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 27, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KANE SPRINGS VALLEY GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36340786; 12757
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way through the Bureau of Land management's Ely District is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a groundwater development project in the Ely District and Lincoln County, Nevada. Project facilities would be located in southern Lincoln County within or immediately adjacent to the 2,640-foot-wide utility corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act. Under the proposed Kane Springs Valley Groundwater Development Project, which is the preferred alternative, the applicant (Lincoln County Water District) would construct infrastructure necessary to pump and convey groundwater in the Kane Springs Valley Hydrographic Basin o help future municipal water needs in the Coyote Spring Valley area. The project would include development of well fields to draw groundwater from the hydrographic basin, laying of water collection and transmission pipelines, installation of a terminal storage tank and a forebay storage tank, construction of electrical substations and distribution lines, and provision of ancillary telemetry system/fiber optic lines. Electrical transmission facilities, to be constructed and operated by Lincoln County Power District, would include a 2.5-mile 138-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, a 10.7-mile, 22.8-kV transmission line, the Emrys Jones Substation to be located on private land, and seven well field substations. The Lincoln County Telephone Company would be responsible for the telemetry and fiber optic equipment. Project implementation would occur over three phases, with one to three years between phases. The first construction phase would extend 90 to 180 days, while phases 2 and 3 would each require only 30 to 60 days to complete. Construction would begin at the southwestern end of the project area, near the intersection of US Highway 93 and Kane Springs Road, and continue to the northeast, generally following Kane Springs Road. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The availability of an a additional source of water supply in Lincoln County would support the growing water demand experienced by local communities in the county and the Coyote Springs Valley and meet expected future demand in the service area and, thereby, support continued economic development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Installation of transmission and fiber optic facilities would disturb approximately 191 acres of previously undisturbed desert land and the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat; 23 acres would be permanently displaced. Disturbed and displaced habitat would be suitable for use by the regionally occurring and federally protected desert tortoise. Grazing permit holders, recreationists, and other public users would experience a disruption in access to the area. The facilities considered by the applicant would lie within a seismically active area. Construction activities could affect the pristine character of the nearby Delamar Mountains and Meadow Valley Range Wilderness. The transmission line would be within the foreground of sensitive viewing areas visible from US 93. Construction activities would result in damage or displacement of 59 isolated archaeological resource sites, primarily sites containing chipped stone artifacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424).
JF  - EPA number: 070255, 447 pages, CD-ROM, June 15, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-29
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Communication Systems
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Ely Resource Management Area
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36340786?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-06-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KANE+SPRINGS+VALLEY+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=KANE+SPRINGS+VALLEY+GROUNDWATER+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, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 15, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DESERT ROCK ENERGY PROJECT, SAN JUAN COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 36340505; 12755
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a coal-fired 1,500-megawatt (MW) power plant and associated facilities on land leased from the Navajo Nation and extension of surface coal mining within the BHP Navajo Coal Company (BNCC) lease area of the Navajo Indian Reservation in San Juan County, New Mexico are proposed. The Desert Rock Energy Project site lies 30 miles southwest of Farmington. The project would require the conclusion of a long-term (50-year) lease between the Navajo Nation and Dine Power Authority (DPA), and a corresponding sublease between DPA and Desert Rock Energy Company LLC, a subsidiary of Sithe Global Power LLC. The power plant, which would site would lie east of the Chaco River and north of Pinabette Wash, would be a supercritical pulverized-coal facility, employing a single reheat, supercritical steam cycle and other design features to enable it to operate with greater net efficiency than existing coal-fired power plants in the region. Air pollutants would be reduced through the use of high-technology emission control devices. Access to the plant site would be from Burnham Road and would run west across the BNCC lease area. Water for cooling, other plant purposes, and Navajo municipal uses would be taken from the Morrison aquifer via 10 to 20 new production wells sunk over a 890-acre well field within the lease site. Water from the aquifer would be piped the 12.4 miles to the plant site and stored in a 2.5-million-gallon storage tank. Two single-circuit, 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines, each requiring a 250-foot-wide rights-of-way, would leave the plant site and run parallel to the east side of the Chaco River in a northerly direction for approximately 14.9 miles to Arizona Public Service's Four Corners Generation Station. From the generation station, one single-circuit, 500-kV transmission line would extend parallel to an existing 230-kV line across the San Juan River to interconnect with the proposed Navajo Transmission Project line, a distance of 10.8 miles. The typical structural supports for the lines would be four-legged, steel-lattice towers approximately 135 feet in height, with a nominal spacing of 1,200 to 1,600 feet between structures. The surface mine, which would also be located within the lease area, would deliver 6.2 million tons of coal per year over the 50-year life of the power plant. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, the construction of a 750-MW, single-unit coal-fired power plant on the project site, alternative power plant site locations, alternative transmission line routes, alternative well field sites, and alternative access road alignments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The power plant and surface mine would support the Navajo Nation's objectives for economic development by providing long-term employment opportunities and revenue cash-flow streams from the development of Navajo natural resources. The facility would help meet demands for electrical power in the rapidly growing southwestern United States and increase the diversity of fuel sources to create a more economically stable and predictable energy supply scenario. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The lease site would displace 592 acres, but the plant footprint would only cover 149 acres. Coal preparation facilities within the lease area would cover a further 101 acres. Nevertheless, 16,996 acres of vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat would be cleared from the plant and mine areas over the life of the project, and recreational uses and livestock grazing on the site would cease. Transmission rights-of-way would traverse agricultural lands, but this would have little impact on farming operations. Average annual water consumption for the plant, which would have a useful life of 50 years, would be 4,500 acre-feet, resulting in drawdown of the Morrison aquifer. An a additional 450 acre feet would be withdrawn from the aquifer via the well field to meet Navajo municipal demand. Mining operations would generate significant levels of particulate emissions, and operation of the power plant would generate particulates, nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds, but federal standards would not be exceeded. Any deterioration in air quality would be disproportionately experienced by the local Navajo population, resulting in a violation of environmental justice criteria. Five archaeological and historical properties were identified along transmission line rights-of-way. Traditional Navajo cultural sites and burial sites would be affected. The plant and mining areas could contain sites of paleontological interest. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12898, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070253, Draft EIS--424 pages and maps, Appendices--737 pages and maps, June 15, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-23
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cemeteries
KW  - Coal
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Emission Control
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mines
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Executive Order 12898, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, Compliance
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36340505?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-06-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERT+ROCK+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+JUAN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=DESERT+ROCK+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+JUAN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Gallup, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 15, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FLIGHT 93 NATIONAL MEMORIAL, SOMERSET, PENNSYLVANIA.
AN  - 36350530; 12752
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Flight 93 National memorial near Somerset, Pennsylvania is proposed. On September 11, 2001, four jet liners were hijacked by terrorists. Two were flown into the World Trade Towers in New York City, a third into the Pentagon in northern Virginia, and a fourth, Flight 93, crashed in a reclaimed coal strip mine outside Somerset. The Pennsylvania crash was caused by heroic intervention by the passengers of Flight 93. All 33 passengers, seven crew members, and the four hijackers were killed. Following an exhaustive field investigation and recovery effort during the autumn of 2001, the Pennsylvania crash site was reclaimed. Within six months of the tragic event, federal legislation was introduced to create a national memorial at the site. The resulting proposal would establish a programmatic framework for development and management of the memorial. The site boundaries would contain 1,335 acres, including the crash site, the debris field, and the area where human remains were found, as well as those lands necessary for providing visitor amenities. Lands that would provide for access to the site from US 30 are also included. An additional 907 acres would comprise the perimeter viewshed around the core visitor lands. The perimeter lands would be obtained via easement or other means that would allow for private ownership. The proposed action would transform the reclaimed mining site as a memorial landscape based upon a design selected from an international design competition. The plan would involve full development of the site into a memorial landscape, which would include an 8,000-square-foot visitor center and a new entrance directly from US 30. Annual visitation would be expected to peak at 400,000 visitors during the tenth anniversary (2011) of the terrorist attacks and then stabilize at 230,000 visitors per year over the long-term. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative, which would maintain the memorial under current management direction. Land acquisition, initial development, and annual operating costs for the memorial are estimated at $8.0 million, $450,000, and $750,000, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure that the National park Service, the Flight 93 Advisory Commission, the Families of Flight 93, and the Flight 93 Memorial Task Force, as well as the public at large, would have clear understanding of the mission of the Flight 93 National Memorial. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Memorial development would require alteration of site topography and visual aesthetics, removal of some vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected species, loss of small wetland areas, alteration of cultural resources at the site LEGAL MANDATES: Flight 93 National Memorial Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-226), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0380D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 070250, 246 pages, June 14, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 07-24
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Flight 93 National Memorial
KW  - Pennsylvania
KW  - Flight 93 National Memorial Act of 2002, Project Authorization
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350530?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-06-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLIGHT+93+NATIONAL+MEMORIAL%2C+SOMERSET%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=FLIGHT+93+NATIONAL+MEMORIAL%2C+SOMERSET%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Somerset, Pennsylvania; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 14, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EFFECT OF THE QUARRY VISITOR CENTER TREATMENT PROJECT, DINOSAUR NATIONAL MONUMENT, UTAH AND COLORADO.
AN  - 36346417; 12743
AB  - PURPOSE: The correction of structural shortcomings associated with the Quarry Visitor Center of the Dinosaur National Monument of Colorado and Utah is proposed. Dinosaur National Monument was created on October 4, 1915 to preserve the outstanding fossil resources located in a dinosaur quarry discovered in the early 1900s by Earl Douglass of the Carnegie Museum. In 1957 and 1958, the Quarry Visitor Center was constructed directly over the fossil bone deposit for the express purpose of protecting and showcasing the primary feature of the monument, the dinosaur fossils exposed in the rock face. The visitor center is an outstanding example of Mission 66 era visitor centers that embody an architectural style described as "Park Service Modern". Due to its distinctive design and its structural relationship to the monument resource, the visitor center was designated a National Historic Landmark on January 3, 2001. The visitor center has four interconnecting structural elements that make up the building's character, specifically, the serpentine entry ramp, the exhibit hall, the administrative wing, and the south wing. The center has experienced problems with foundation movements since its construction. The building is subjected to extensive strain caused by differential movements of underlying expansive clay strata, causing substantial damage to the building. On July 12, 2006, the National Park Service found it necessary to close the Quarry Visitor Center due to structural instability. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts to cultural resources, geologic and paleontological resources, visitor use and experience, socioeconomics, public health and safety, and park management and operations. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would mount a project to rehabilitate or replace the exhibit hall and construct a new facility offsite. Alternative C would retain the exhibit hall and construct a new facility at the Quarry Visitor Center Site. Alternative D would retain the exhibit hall and construct wings similar to the existing facility. Alternative E would demolish the entire facility and replace it with a new facility at the Quarry Visitor Center site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of the visitor site facility would allow the center to meet current applicable building codes, including those addressing access, egress, and accessibility, eliminating the safety and health issues that plague the existing structure. The new facilities would protect the paleontological resources on the quarry face and geological resources surrounding the quarry, provide an environment where employees can work efficiently and safely, and provide visitor orientation about Dinosaur National Monument and means to enjoy their visit. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation measures would result in the alteration of an historically significant site. The fossil wall could suffer damage during construction activities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070241, 226 pages, June 8, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-26
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Museums
KW  - Quarries
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Dinosaur National Monument
KW  - Utah
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346417?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EFFECT+OF+THE+QUARRY+VISITOR+CENTER+TREATMENT+PROJECT%2C+DINOSAUR+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+UTAH+AND+COLORADO.&rft.title=EFFECT+OF+THE+QUARRY+VISITOR+CENTER+TREATMENT+PROJECT%2C+DINOSAUR+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+UTAH+AND+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Dinosaur, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA (DOCKET NOS. CP06-61-000, CP06-61-001, CP06-61-002, CP01-23-003),
AN  - 36343145; 12746
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the expansion of the North Baja Pipeline liquefied natural gas (LNG) transportation system between Ehrenberg, Arizona and an interconnection at the Mexican border in Arizona and California is proposed. The existing North Baja system is currently certified to transport 512m500 decatherms per day (Dthd) of natural gas in a southbound direction. Once completed, the proposed expansion would be capable of transporting up to 2.9 million Dthd of natural gas from planned liquefied natural gas storage and vaporization terminals located on the Baja coast in Mexico northward for delivery to customers in California and Arizona. In addition to the new volumes of LNG from the new terminals, the system would continue to offer southbound bas transportation for several existing shippers. The project would involve construction of 79.8 miles of 42- and 48-inch-diameter pipeline loop adjacent to North Baja's existing pipeline in La Paz County, Arizona and Riverside and Imperial counties, California; 20 feet of 36-inch-diameter pipeline to connect the new loop to the SoCal Gas Company system within the proposed Blythe Meter Station site in Riverside County; 0.6 mile of 10-inch-diameter pipeline lateral extending from the Blythe Station to an interconnection with the Blythe Energy Facility I supply pipeline in Riverside County; 45.7 miles of 16-inch-diameter pipeline lateral extending from a point near the existing Ogilby Meter Station to the existing Imperial Irrigation District (IID) El Centro Generation Station in Imperial County; and modification and installation of a number of other meter stations and provision of other supporting facilities, including a tap for the IID interconnect, three pig launchers, four pig receivers, and 13 remote manual valves. The project would be implemented in three phases beginning in 2007 and ending in 2009. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to expanding the capacity of the North Baja system, the project would provide for northbound delivery of gas from Mexico, helping to ensure the reliability of the energy base in southern California and, thereby, supporting additional economic growth in the region. Construction and operation of the facilities would employ local workers, further boosting the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb desert soils and vegetation over 1,551.5 acres of land, though most disturbance would occur within existing rights-of-way. The system would lie within an area affected by seismic activity and could be damaged by earthquake tremors. Approximately 74.8 acres of farmland and 82.9 acres of woodland would be disturbed and/or displaced. Wildlife habitat to be displaced would include habitat for migratory birds. The project could affect critical habitat for the federally protected Peirson's milk-vetch and the desert tortoise. The pipeline would traverse two perennial waterbodies, the Colorado and Alamo rivers, 70 irrigation canals and drains, and 265 desert washes as well as 18 palustrine wetlands. The pipeline would pass within 100 feet of 39 residences and six businesses, and the rights-of-way would cross three special management areas, including one area managed for recreational purposes. Numerous cultural resource sites, many of which are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected by construction and operation of the system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0498D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 070244, Final EIS--677 pages, Appendices--545 pages, June 7, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0200F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reclamation Plans
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization/
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343145?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-06-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+BAJA+PIPELINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA+AND+CALIFORNIA+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP06-61-000%2C+CP06-61-001%2C+CP06-61-002%2C+CP01-23-003%29%2C&rft.title=NORTH+BAJA+PIPELINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA+AND+CALIFORNIA+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP06-61-000%2C+CP06-61-001%2C+CP06-61-002%2C+CP01-23-003%29%2C&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 7, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SURPRISE FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MODOC AND LASSEN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA AND WASHOE AND HUMBOLDT COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36341349; 12739
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a multiple-use general resource management plan for the land and resources administered by the Surprise Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management in Modoc and Lassen counties, California and Washoe and Humboldt counties, Nevada is proposed. The service area encompasses approximately 2.4 million acres, though the planning and decision area for resources and resource uses within the proposed resource management plan encompasses only 1.2 million acres of public lands within the field office's administrative jurisdictional boundaries. Current management direction for the Alturas Field Office resources is contained in three land use plans or amendments developed in the 1870s and early 1980s. New information and changes to circumstances and resource conditions since these plans were formulated require the revision of the plans into a single updated resource management plan. Population growth in the vicinity of Llamath Falls and Lakeview, Oregon and the metropolitan areas of Reno, Nevada, and Redding, California has caused an increase demand for use of public lands to support community needs and low impact recreation. Vegetation communities continue to be threatened by encroachment of western juniper into and invasion of exotic annual grasses and noxious weeds. The number of plant and animal species recognized by California and Nevada as needing special protection has increased. New protocols must be implemented to protect and enhance cultural resource sites. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with upland ecosystems, forestry resources, water resources, visual resources, riparian areas and wetlands, wildland fire and prescribed fire, vehicular access, traditional practices and traditional cultural properties important to Native Americans, the needs of local communities, grazing and range management resources, land tenure, energy and mineral development entries, recreational opportunities, fish and wildlife habitat, and special values and special management areas. These issues are addressed in the five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, considered in the February 2006 draft EIS. Proposed areas of critical environmental concern, suitable wild and scenic river segments, and cultural resource management areas are also recommended in the action alternatives. This final EIS identifies and outlines the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide for appropriate development of field office resources, particularly energy and mineral resources, timber resources, water, 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 6-0348D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 070237, Volume 1--403 pages and maps, Volume 2--573 pages and maps, Comments--CD-ROM, June 6, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: FES 07-16
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geothermal Resources
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Surprise Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36341349?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-06-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURPRISE+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MODOC+AND+LASSEN+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+WASHOE+AND+HUMBOLDT+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SURPRISE+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MODOC+AND+LASSEN+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+WASHOE+AND+HUMBOLDT+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedarville, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 6, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS STUDY: GREAT SAND DUNES NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, ALAMOSA AND SAGUACHE COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 36341173; 12735
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve (GSDNPP), Alamosa and Saguache counties, Colorado is proposed. The plan would direct management of the GSDNPP over the next 15 to 20 years, including park and preserve boundary adjustments and designation and management of areas determined eligible for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. The Great Sand Dunes National Monument was established in 1932, and the Great Sand Dunes Wilderness Area was designated in 1976. The park lies in the high San Luis Valley at an elevation of 8,175 feet. The valley is a discrete cultural region rich in Hispanic culture and place names. The park is part of a fragile, dynamic system that influences and sustains the dunes, which consist of a huge deposit of pure sand nestled against the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, creating the highest dunes in North America. From valley floor to the crest of the Sangre de Cristos, a dramatic variety of live zones provides for distinct communities of plant and animal species. The valley is also rich in archaeological resources, dating back 12,000 years to early Native American use of the area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative, developed between 2003 and 2006, would designate a large portion of the park expansion lands as wilderness. To address existing and growing congestion in parking areas near the high dunes, the park would pursue traffic management and possible transportation solutions rather than building additional parking facilities or limiting use. The park's entrance station would be removed and a new station located closer to the park boundary. Bike lanes would be added to the main entrance road from the park boundary to the dunes parking lot. A hiking/biking path would connect the Pinyon Flats campground to the dunes parking lot and visitor center. The National Park Service would seek to acquire the historic Medano Ranch and adaptively use ranch headquarters for administrative purposes and guided public activities. A trailhead, accessed via the Baca Grande subdivision, would be provided in the northern part of the park to provide better access for backcountry recreation on the nearby national forest, the preserve, and new lands within the national park. The plan would also address primary interpretive themes, water resources management, the Great Sand Dunes Wilderness Area, domestic livestock grazing and the associated range management, and management of hunting, fishing, and trapping. Water resources management provisions would particularly address the Closed Basin Division of the San Luis Valley Project, which is operated to pump and deliver unconfined groundwater and available surface flows in the Closed Basin to the Rio Grande River via a 42-mile conveyance channel. Capital costs for the preferred alternative are estimated to range from $16.5 million to $21.2 million. Life cycle costs, estimated for 25 years, are estimated to range from $44.9 million to $49.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised GSDNPP and wilderness management plans would ensure the protection of the unique natural resources associated with the great dunes and enhance the experience of visitors to the area. Rare scenic, watershed, and wildlife habitat values would be preserved for the enjoyment of present and future generations. Continued operation of the Closed Basin Project would ensure that the U.S. would continue to meet its water delivery treaty obligations to Mexico as well as delivering water to the Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facility construction and vegetation management, particularly management related to livestock grazing, would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and disturb soils, leading to erosion and sedimentation of watershed flows. Increased visitation due to improved access and services would result in additional stress on the ecological and visual environments. Removal of groundwater via the Closed Basic Project could eventually draw down the groundwater table somewhat, potentially affecting surface flows, which would also lose water directly due to project activities. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-77), Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-530), Public Law 94-567, Public Law 95-625, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070233, 558 pages, June 4, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: FES 07-19
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Channels
KW  - Dunes
KW  - Foreign Policies
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve
KW  - Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993, Compliance
KW  - Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve Act of 2000, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 1994, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 94-567, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 95-625, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36341173?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-06-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+%2F+WILDERNESS+STUDY%3A+GREAT+SAND+DUNES+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALAMOSA+AND+SAGUACHE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+%2F+WILDERNESS+STUDY%3A+GREAT+SAND+DUNES+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALAMOSA+AND+SAGUACHE+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; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 4, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FOLS0M FIELD OFFICE, YUBA, SUTTER, COLUSA, NEVADA, PLACER, EL DORADO, ALPINE, AMADOR, CALAVERAS, SAN JOAQUIN, TULOUMNE, MARIPOSA, SACRAMENTO, STANISLAUS, AND MERCED COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36350477; 12726
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general resource management plan (RMP) for the Sierra Resource Management Area, administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Yuba, Sutter, Colusa, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, San Joaquin, Tuloumne, Mariposa, Sacramento, Stanislaus, and Merced counties of central California is proposed. The planning area includes 231,386 acres of BLM-managed surface acres and 300,000 additional subsurface mineral estate. Public land is fragmented and dispersed, often in small and irregular parcels and mostly concentrated in river corridors. The area includes approximately 1,000 publicly owned parcels dispersed amongst privately held tracts. Nine BLM assessment areas, based on watershed land uses, have been identified. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Management areas addressed by all alternatives include those related to designation, expansion, and management of areas of critical environmental concern; designation of wild and scenic river corridors; wilderness study area management; special and extensive recreational management areas stipulations; recreational transportation and access; land tenure adjustments; land use authorizations; land withdrawals and classifications; wildfire and fire ecology; forestry and woodlands; livestock grazing; minerals and energy resources management; and visual resources. Like the other alternatives, the preferred alternative (Alternative D) would address each of these management facets with highly specific, delineated acreage allocations and more generalized management stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would lead to land ownership and access patterns that respond to urban growth issues and consolidate BLM land management responsibilities; guide and focus recreational activities; protect significant natural and cultural resource values; and make recommendations regarding the management of important river corridors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Timber harvest and mining and geothermal resources extraction would result in the greatest impacts to vegetation, soils, and water quality and the associated fish and terrestrial wildlife habitat. Road construction, grazing, and recreational site development would also damage habitat, though to a lesser extent. Concentrated recreational uses would conflict with primitive recreational uses, and resource exploitation-related activities would conflict with all coterminus and contiguous recreational uses. 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 06-0516D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 070224, 468 pages and maps, June 1, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: FES 07-18
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Geothermal Resources
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - Sierra Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350477?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIERRA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FOLS0M+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+YUBA%2C+SUTTER%2C+COLUSA%2C+NEVADA%2C+PLACER%2C+EL+DORADO%2C+ALPINE%2C+AMADOR%2C+CALAVERAS%2C+SAN+JOAQUIN%2C+TULOUMNE%2C+MARIPOSA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+STANISLAUS%2C+AND+MERCED+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SIERRA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FOLS0M+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+YUBA%2C+SUTTER%2C+COLUSA%2C+NEVADA%2C+PLACER%2C+EL+DORADO%2C+ALPINE%2C+AMADOR%2C+CALAVERAS%2C+SAN+JOAQUIN%2C+TULOUMNE%2C+MARIPOSA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+STANISLAUS%2C+AND+MERCED+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MARIN HEADLANDS AND FORT BAKER TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36346647; 12729
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a transportation infrastructure and management plan for the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker area of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (NRA) in Marin County, California is proposed. The NRA encompasses 79,000 acres of land and water, including approximately 50 miles of bay and ocean shoreline, Fort Point National Historic Site, Muir Woods National Monument, Alcatraz Island, and the Presidio of San Francisco. The Marin Headlands and Fort Baker are located in the San Francisco Bay area at the north end of Golden Gate Bridge, across the bay from San Francisco. The 2,500-acre Headlands span the southern tip of the Marin Peninsula, from US 101 to the western coastline. Fort Baker is a 335-acre site directly adjacent to the Headlands on the east site of US 101. In June 2000, the National Park Service initiated a transportation management study to evaluate current transportation conditions in the study area. Most of the asphalt roadway paving in the areas is more than 30 years old, resulting in pavement cracking, failing, and breakage. Only 12 percent of the paved roads in the areas appear to be in good condition, while 67 percent are in poor condition. Parking facilities suffer for poor pavement conditions and cannot meet capacity needs. Drainage features associated with the road system are likewise deteriorating. Based on roadway studies, conceptual approaches to address various transportation issues have been developed, along with a number of alternative plans to implement those approaches. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to coordination of the transportation plan with other plans, access to the NRA, safety, signing, parking fees, vehicular restrictions and road closures, natural and historic resources preservation, special events capacity, and funding. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would rehabilitate or reconstruct roadway infrastructure to move the appearance of the road corridors and parking areas as close as possible to the historic character of the areas. Pedestrian and bicycle access would be improved by closing and rerouting existing trails and constructing new trails. Transit service improvements would also be implemented at various locations. Construction costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $26.9 million. Annual cost estimates for additional transit operations range from $1.4 million to $1.6 million and, for car-free days, from $134,0000 to $157,500. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for enhanced multimodal access to the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker. Additional transit options would be provided to and within both areas to improve access. Long-term reduction in erosion would result in significant improvement of coastal resources associated with the NRA. The safety of motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists visiting the park would improve significantly, and park administration would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Excavation of existing rock cuts would be required to accommodate roadway widening in certain areas. Soil erosion on the road and trail system would continue to cause long-term, moderate soil and vegetation losses and sedimentation of receiving streams and the bay. Construction of transportation facilities would directly displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Special status species that would be likely to be affected include mission blue butterfly, tidewater goby and steelhead, California red-legged frog, California brown pelican, western snowy plover, salt marsh harvest mouse, western pond turtle, salt marsh common yellowthroat, Allen's hummingbird, and various species of bats. Historic resources would be affected by construction activities and the presence of the improved transportation infrastructure. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070227, 457 pages and maps, June 1, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Bays
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Insects
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Shores
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Golden Gate National Recreation Area
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346647?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARIN+HEADLANDS+AND+FORT+BAKER+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+AND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MARIN+HEADLANDS+AND+FORT+BAKER+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+AND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 1, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TO REMOVE OR MODIFY THE SURVEY AND MANAGE MITIGATION MEASURE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES, FOREST SERVICE NATIONAL FOREST REGIONS 5 AND 6 AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS IN WASHINGTON, OREGON, AND CALIFORNIA WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE SPOTTED OWL (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE JULY 2006 DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2004).
AN  - 36341254; 12727
AB  - PURPOSE: The removal or modification of Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (SMMMSG) governing U.S. Forest Service in regions 5 and 6 and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) districts in Washington, Oregon, and California within the range of the endangered northern spotted owl is proposed. The proposal responds to a settlement agreement resulting from a lawsuit against the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior. The proposal would require amendment of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). Concerns have been raised that the SMMMSG are frustrating Forest Service and BLM efforts to accomplish resource management objectives of the NFP. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the January 2004 final supplement to the final EIS of 1994 addressing the forest plan. The 304 affected species were analyzed to determine the consequences under the three alternatives. The analyses demonstrated that the SMMMSG and the Special Status Species programs add protection and reduce risk to species. Alternatives 2 or 3 would, respectively, amend or modify agency land and resource management plans to remove the SMMMSG. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would amend 28 land and resource management plans to remove SMMMSG provisions. The alternative would provide for surveys prior to habitat-disturbing activities, site management, conservation strategies, inventories, consideration of potential mitigation measures, the addition or removal of species from protective provisions, and provisions for reporting, monitoring, and review of land and resource management plans. The supplemental EIS of January 2004 provided additional analysis in response to three deficiencies in the foregoing EIS process by the District Court of the Western District of Washington in August 2005. To respond to these deficiencies, the supplement analyzes potential impacts to sensitive species not added to or removed from the special species protection programs of the Forest Service or the BLM; provides a thorough analysis of the assumption that late-successional reserves adequately protect species for the target protected species; and discloses and analyses flaws in the analytical methodology for calculating the acreage in need of hazardous fuel treatments and the related cost analysis methodology. The supplement at hand, which responds to a decision by the federal appeals court and which extends the July 2006 supplement, addresses an additional No Action Alternative (Alternative 4). Alternative 4 would retain the survey and management standards and guidelines, but differs from the other No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) by including all 337 species covered by the 2001 SMMMSG (and their respective category assignments). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would continue to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities in the affected areas; reduce the agencies' cost, time, and effort associated with rare and little known species conservation; and restore the agencies' ability to achieve resource management objectives that were established under the NFP. Compared to Alternative 1, annual timber harvest would be 100 million board-feet (MMBF) or 75 MMBF higher under alternatives 2 or 3, respectively. Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase annual employment and hazardous fuel treatment acreage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Recognizing that much remains unknown about many of the species, 141 species would remain at high risk of extirpation under all alternatives due to factors beyond the control of the FS and the BLM. A total of 47 and seven species, which are not at high risk under Alternative 1, would be at high risk of extirpation under alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplement to the July 2006 draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0082F, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 070225, Final Supplemental EIS--439 pages, Appendices--671 pages, June 1, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Forests
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
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/36341254?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TO+REMOVE+OR+MODIFY+THE+SURVEY+AND+MANAGE+MITIGATION+MEASURE+STANDARDS+AND+GUIDELINES%2C+FOREST+SERVICE+NATIONAL+FOREST+REGIONS+5+AND+6+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+OREGON%2C+AND+CALIFORNIA+WITHIN+THE+RANGE+OF+THE+SPOTTED+OWL+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+JULY+2006+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2004%29.&rft.title=TO+REMOVE+OR+MODIFY+THE+SURVEY+AND+MANAGE+MITIGATION+MEASURE+STANDARDS+AND+GUIDELINES%2C+FOREST+SERVICE+NATIONAL+FOREST+REGIONS+5+AND+6+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+OREGON%2C+AND+CALIFORNIA+WITHIN+THE+RANGE+OF+THE+SPOTTED+OWL+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+JULY+2006+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NYS ROUTE 17 AT EXIT 122, TOWN OF WALLKILL, ORANGE COUNTY, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36341176; 12732
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Exit 22 interchanger on New York State Route NYS 17 to interstate highway standards in the town of Wallkill, Orange County, New York is proposed. The existing interchange is characterized by very sharp curves on its ramps and is also affected by the proximity of the exit and entrance ramps to the Interstate 84 (I-84) ramps, which results in a high accident rate, particularly westbound. Traffic movements are also slowed by delays at the ramp intersections with Crystal Run Road and East Main Street and the steep grade of East Main Street. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Four of the build alternatives are variations on a similar theme for the exit, differing n their approach to the relocation of East Main Street and Crystal Run Road. The five build alternatives would take a different approach for the exit and keep Crystal Run Road close to its existing location. All build alternatives would include the construction of a canoe launch near Midway Road. Estimated costs of the build alternatives range from $60 million to $92 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve Exit 122 to meet federal standards for an interstate exit, improve NYS 17 to meet federal interstate standards, and improve the operational safety of NYS 17, Crystal Run Road, and East Main Street for existing traffic volumes and for reasonably foreseeable increases in traffic volumes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 71 to 94 acres of private property, five businesses, and one or two residences. Natural resources to be affected would include 1.72 to 3.26 acres of wetlands and 15.4 to 28.7 acres of forested land. All build alternatives would have a minor impact on the 100-year floodplain of the Wallkill River; from 3.1 to 3.3 acres of the floodplain would suffer encroachment. Six to seven archaeological sites would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of one or five residential receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 070230, Draft EIS--255 pages and maps, Appendices A through C--461 pages and maps, Appendix D--98 pages (oversized), Appendix E--661 pages, Appendix F--287 pages, Appendix G--627 pages and maps, Appendices H through J--178 pages Appendix K--299 pages and maps, Appendices L through P--277 pages and maps, Appendices Q through T--313 pages and maps, June 1, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA--EIS-07-04-D
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Energy Consumption Assessments
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Forests
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - New York
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/36341176?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NYS+ROUTE+17+AT+EXIT+122%2C+TOWN+OF+WALLKILL%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=NYS+ROUTE+17+AT+EXIT+122%2C+TOWN+OF+WALLKILL%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 1, 2007
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.
AN  - 36340264; 12723
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 draft 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 070221, Volume I--501 pages, Volume II--443 pages, CD-ROM, May 30, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-22
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  - 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/36340264?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-05-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUTTE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BROADWATER%2C+DEER+LODGE%2C+GALLATIN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+SILVER+BOW%2C+PARK%2C+AND+BEAVERHEAD+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=BUTTE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BROADWATER%2C+DEER+LODGE%2C+GALLATIN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+SILVER+BOW%2C+PARK%2C+AND+BEAVERHEAD+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 30, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT, EASTERN TEXAS, NORTHERN LOUISIANA, AND WESTERN MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP06-446-000, PF06-17-000, PF06-23-000). [Part 6 of 6]
T2  - EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT, EASTERN TEXAS, NORTHERN LOUISIANA, AND WESTERN MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP06-446-000, PF06-17-000, PF06-23-000).
AN  - 756824738; 12864-070214_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in various counties and parishes in eastern Texas, northern Louisiana, and western Mississippi is proposed. The applicant, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, wishes to transport natural gas from production fields in eastern Texas to markets in the Gulf Coast, Midwestern, Northeastern, and Southeastern United States. The system contemplated by the applicant, would include 240 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline extending eastward from DeSoto Parish in Louisiana to Simpson County in Mississippi; 3.3 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline extending from Gulf South's existing Carthage Junction compressor station in Panola County, Texas to interconnects with existing natural gas facilities within Panola County; new compressor stations, one each in Ouachita and Madison parishes, Louisiana; modifications to existing compressor stations at Carthage Junction in Panola County, Hall Summit in Bienville Parish, Louisiana, and McComb in Walthall County, Mississippi; and ancillary facilities including six meter and regulator facilities, 11 mainline valves, nine side valves, and six pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, an alternative that would postpone the proposed action, alternative energy sources, system alternatives, energy conservation technologies and practices, a major pipeline route alternative and minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would be capable of 1.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day to the applicant's target markets, improving the reliability of natural gas delivery in those markets and helping to reduce the dependency of the United States on foreign sources of energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would cross 848 surface waterbodies and 301 wetlands, disturbing approximately 114.9 areas of wetlands. Conventional open-cut construction would be used to cross all but 64 of these waterbodies, which would be crossed using horizontal directional drilling. Special-status and high-quality wetlands , including wetlands in the National Resource Conservation Service-administered Wetland Reserve Program and Prior Converted Wetlands program, as well as several high-quality forested wetlands, would be affected by construction and operation of the system. Numerous acres of forested wetlands would be cleared and converted to emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands and maintained in those states within the permanent rights-of-way during operation. The pipelines would pass in the vicinity of several recreational and special interest areas, including the Ouachita Wildlife Management Area, the Pearl and Black rivers, Black Lake Bayou and Saline Bayou, the Natchez Trace Parkway, and the Tensas National Wildlife Refuge. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974(22 U.S.C. 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0041D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 070214, 624 pages, May 24, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0206D
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824738?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-05-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+TEXAS+TO+MISSISSIPPI+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+EASTERN+TEXAS%2C+NORTHERN+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+WESTERN+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP06-446-000%2C+PF06-17-000%2C+PF06-23-000%29.&rft.title=EAST+TEXAS+TO+MISSISSIPPI+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+EASTERN+TEXAS%2C+NORTHERN+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+WESTERN+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP06-446-000%2C+PF06-17-000%2C+PF06-23-000%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 24, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT, EASTERN TEXAS, NORTHERN LOUISIANA, AND WESTERN MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP06-446-000, PF06-17-000, PF06-23-000). [Part 4 of 6]
T2  - EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT, EASTERN TEXAS, NORTHERN LOUISIANA, AND WESTERN MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP06-446-000, PF06-17-000, PF06-23-000).
AN  - 756824728; 12864-070214_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in various counties and parishes in eastern Texas, northern Louisiana, and western Mississippi is proposed. The applicant, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, wishes to transport natural gas from production fields in eastern Texas to markets in the Gulf Coast, Midwestern, Northeastern, and Southeastern United States. The system contemplated by the applicant, would include 240 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline extending eastward from DeSoto Parish in Louisiana to Simpson County in Mississippi; 3.3 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline extending from Gulf South's existing Carthage Junction compressor station in Panola County, Texas to interconnects with existing natural gas facilities within Panola County; new compressor stations, one each in Ouachita and Madison parishes, Louisiana; modifications to existing compressor stations at Carthage Junction in Panola County, Hall Summit in Bienville Parish, Louisiana, and McComb in Walthall County, Mississippi; and ancillary facilities including six meter and regulator facilities, 11 mainline valves, nine side valves, and six pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, an alternative that would postpone the proposed action, alternative energy sources, system alternatives, energy conservation technologies and practices, a major pipeline route alternative and minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would be capable of 1.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day to the applicant's target markets, improving the reliability of natural gas delivery in those markets and helping to reduce the dependency of the United States on foreign sources of energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would cross 848 surface waterbodies and 301 wetlands, disturbing approximately 114.9 areas of wetlands. Conventional open-cut construction would be used to cross all but 64 of these waterbodies, which would be crossed using horizontal directional drilling. Special-status and high-quality wetlands , including wetlands in the National Resource Conservation Service-administered Wetland Reserve Program and Prior Converted Wetlands program, as well as several high-quality forested wetlands, would be affected by construction and operation of the system. Numerous acres of forested wetlands would be cleared and converted to emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands and maintained in those states within the permanent rights-of-way during operation. The pipelines would pass in the vicinity of several recreational and special interest areas, including the Ouachita Wildlife Management Area, the Pearl and Black rivers, Black Lake Bayou and Saline Bayou, the Natchez Trace Parkway, and the Tensas National Wildlife Refuge. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974(22 U.S.C. 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0041D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 070214, 624 pages, May 24, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0206D
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824728?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-05-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+TEXAS+TO+MISSISSIPPI+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+EASTERN+TEXAS%2C+NORTHERN+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+WESTERN+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP06-446-000%2C+PF06-17-000%2C+PF06-23-000%29.&rft.title=EAST+TEXAS+TO+MISSISSIPPI+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+EASTERN+TEXAS%2C+NORTHERN+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+WESTERN+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP06-446-000%2C+PF06-17-000%2C+PF06-23-000%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 24, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT, EASTERN TEXAS, NORTHERN LOUISIANA, AND WESTERN MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP06-446-000, PF06-17-000, PF06-23-000). [Part 2 of 6]
T2  - EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT, EASTERN TEXAS, NORTHERN LOUISIANA, AND WESTERN MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP06-446-000, PF06-17-000, PF06-23-000).
AN  - 756824561; 12864-070214_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in various counties and parishes in eastern Texas, northern Louisiana, and western Mississippi is proposed. The applicant, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, wishes to transport natural gas from production fields in eastern Texas to markets in the Gulf Coast, Midwestern, Northeastern, and Southeastern United States. The system contemplated by the applicant, would include 240 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline extending eastward from DeSoto Parish in Louisiana to Simpson County in Mississippi; 3.3 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline extending from Gulf South's existing Carthage Junction compressor station in Panola County, Texas to interconnects with existing natural gas facilities within Panola County; new compressor stations, one each in Ouachita and Madison parishes, Louisiana; modifications to existing compressor stations at Carthage Junction in Panola County, Hall Summit in Bienville Parish, Louisiana, and McComb in Walthall County, Mississippi; and ancillary facilities including six meter and regulator facilities, 11 mainline valves, nine side valves, and six pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, an alternative that would postpone the proposed action, alternative energy sources, system alternatives, energy conservation technologies and practices, a major pipeline route alternative and minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would be capable of 1.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day to the applicant's target markets, improving the reliability of natural gas delivery in those markets and helping to reduce the dependency of the United States on foreign sources of energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would cross 848 surface waterbodies and 301 wetlands, disturbing approximately 114.9 areas of wetlands. Conventional open-cut construction would be used to cross all but 64 of these waterbodies, which would be crossed using horizontal directional drilling. Special-status and high-quality wetlands , including wetlands in the National Resource Conservation Service-administered Wetland Reserve Program and Prior Converted Wetlands program, as well as several high-quality forested wetlands, would be affected by construction and operation of the system. Numerous acres of forested wetlands would be cleared and converted to emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands and maintained in those states within the permanent rights-of-way during operation. The pipelines would pass in the vicinity of several recreational and special interest areas, including the Ouachita Wildlife Management Area, the Pearl and Black rivers, Black Lake Bayou and Saline Bayou, the Natchez Trace Parkway, and the Tensas National Wildlife Refuge. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974(22 U.S.C. 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0041D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 070214, 624 pages, May 24, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0206D
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824561?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-05-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+TEXAS+TO+MISSISSIPPI+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+EASTERN+TEXAS%2C+NORTHERN+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+WESTERN+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP06-446-000%2C+PF06-17-000%2C+PF06-23-000%29.&rft.title=EAST+TEXAS+TO+MISSISSIPPI+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+EASTERN+TEXAS%2C+NORTHERN+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+WESTERN+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP06-446-000%2C+PF06-17-000%2C+PF06-23-000%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 24, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT, EASTERN TEXAS, NORTHERN LOUISIANA, AND WESTERN MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP06-446-000, PF06-17-000, PF06-23-000). [Part 1 of 6]
T2  - EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT, EASTERN TEXAS, NORTHERN LOUISIANA, AND WESTERN MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP06-446-000, PF06-17-000, PF06-23-000).
AN  - 756824546; 12864-070214_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in various counties and parishes in eastern Texas, northern Louisiana, and western Mississippi is proposed. The applicant, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, wishes to transport natural gas from production fields in eastern Texas to markets in the Gulf Coast, Midwestern, Northeastern, and Southeastern United States. The system contemplated by the applicant, would include 240 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline extending eastward from DeSoto Parish in Louisiana to Simpson County in Mississippi; 3.3 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline extending from Gulf South's existing Carthage Junction compressor station in Panola County, Texas to interconnects with existing natural gas facilities within Panola County; new compressor stations, one each in Ouachita and Madison parishes, Louisiana; modifications to existing compressor stations at Carthage Junction in Panola County, Hall Summit in Bienville Parish, Louisiana, and McComb in Walthall County, Mississippi; and ancillary facilities including six meter and regulator facilities, 11 mainline valves, nine side valves, and six pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, an alternative that would postpone the proposed action, alternative energy sources, system alternatives, energy conservation technologies and practices, a major pipeline route alternative and minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would be capable of 1.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day to the applicant's target markets, improving the reliability of natural gas delivery in those markets and helping to reduce the dependency of the United States on foreign sources of energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would cross 848 surface waterbodies and 301 wetlands, disturbing approximately 114.9 areas of wetlands. Conventional open-cut construction would be used to cross all but 64 of these waterbodies, which would be crossed using horizontal directional drilling. Special-status and high-quality wetlands , including wetlands in the National Resource Conservation Service-administered Wetland Reserve Program and Prior Converted Wetlands program, as well as several high-quality forested wetlands, would be affected by construction and operation of the system. Numerous acres of forested wetlands would be cleared and converted to emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands and maintained in those states within the permanent rights-of-way during operation. The pipelines would pass in the vicinity of several recreational and special interest areas, including the Ouachita Wildlife Management Area, the Pearl and Black rivers, Black Lake Bayou and Saline Bayou, the Natchez Trace Parkway, and the Tensas National Wildlife Refuge. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974(22 U.S.C. 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0041D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 070214, 624 pages, May 24, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0206D
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824546?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-05-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+TEXAS+TO+MISSISSIPPI+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+EASTERN+TEXAS%2C+NORTHERN+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+WESTERN+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP06-446-000%2C+PF06-17-000%2C+PF06-23-000%29.&rft.title=EAST+TEXAS+TO+MISSISSIPPI+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+EASTERN+TEXAS%2C+NORTHERN+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+WESTERN+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP06-446-000%2C+PF06-17-000%2C+PF06-23-000%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 24, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT, EASTERN TEXAS, NORTHERN LOUISIANA, AND WESTERN MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP06-446-000, PF06-17-000, PF06-23-000). [Part 5 of 6]
T2  - EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT, EASTERN TEXAS, NORTHERN LOUISIANA, AND WESTERN MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP06-446-000, PF06-17-000, PF06-23-000).
AN  - 756824400; 12864-070214_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in various counties and parishes in eastern Texas, northern Louisiana, and western Mississippi is proposed. The applicant, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, wishes to transport natural gas from production fields in eastern Texas to markets in the Gulf Coast, Midwestern, Northeastern, and Southeastern United States. The system contemplated by the applicant, would include 240 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline extending eastward from DeSoto Parish in Louisiana to Simpson County in Mississippi; 3.3 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline extending from Gulf South's existing Carthage Junction compressor station in Panola County, Texas to interconnects with existing natural gas facilities within Panola County; new compressor stations, one each in Ouachita and Madison parishes, Louisiana; modifications to existing compressor stations at Carthage Junction in Panola County, Hall Summit in Bienville Parish, Louisiana, and McComb in Walthall County, Mississippi; and ancillary facilities including six meter and regulator facilities, 11 mainline valves, nine side valves, and six pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, an alternative that would postpone the proposed action, alternative energy sources, system alternatives, energy conservation technologies and practices, a major pipeline route alternative and minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would be capable of 1.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day to the applicant's target markets, improving the reliability of natural gas delivery in those markets and helping to reduce the dependency of the United States on foreign sources of energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would cross 848 surface waterbodies and 301 wetlands, disturbing approximately 114.9 areas of wetlands. Conventional open-cut construction would be used to cross all but 64 of these waterbodies, which would be crossed using horizontal directional drilling. Special-status and high-quality wetlands , including wetlands in the National Resource Conservation Service-administered Wetland Reserve Program and Prior Converted Wetlands program, as well as several high-quality forested wetlands, would be affected by construction and operation of the system. Numerous acres of forested wetlands would be cleared and converted to emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands and maintained in those states within the permanent rights-of-way during operation. The pipelines would pass in the vicinity of several recreational and special interest areas, including the Ouachita Wildlife Management Area, the Pearl and Black rivers, Black Lake Bayou and Saline Bayou, the Natchez Trace Parkway, and the Tensas National Wildlife Refuge. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974(22 U.S.C. 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0041D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 070214, 624 pages, May 24, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0206D
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824400?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-05-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+TEXAS+TO+MISSISSIPPI+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+EASTERN+TEXAS%2C+NORTHERN+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+WESTERN+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP06-446-000%2C+PF06-17-000%2C+PF06-23-000%29.&rft.title=EAST+TEXAS+TO+MISSISSIPPI+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+EASTERN+TEXAS%2C+NORTHERN+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+WESTERN+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP06-446-000%2C+PF06-17-000%2C+PF06-23-000%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 24, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT, EASTERN TEXAS, NORTHERN LOUISIANA, AND WESTERN MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP06-446-000, PF06-17-000, PF06-23-000). [Part 3 of 6]
T2  - EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT, EASTERN TEXAS, NORTHERN LOUISIANA, AND WESTERN MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP06-446-000, PF06-17-000, PF06-23-000).
AN  - 756824377; 12864-070214_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in various counties and parishes in eastern Texas, northern Louisiana, and western Mississippi is proposed. The applicant, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, wishes to transport natural gas from production fields in eastern Texas to markets in the Gulf Coast, Midwestern, Northeastern, and Southeastern United States. The system contemplated by the applicant, would include 240 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline extending eastward from DeSoto Parish in Louisiana to Simpson County in Mississippi; 3.3 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline extending from Gulf South's existing Carthage Junction compressor station in Panola County, Texas to interconnects with existing natural gas facilities within Panola County; new compressor stations, one each in Ouachita and Madison parishes, Louisiana; modifications to existing compressor stations at Carthage Junction in Panola County, Hall Summit in Bienville Parish, Louisiana, and McComb in Walthall County, Mississippi; and ancillary facilities including six meter and regulator facilities, 11 mainline valves, nine side valves, and six pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, an alternative that would postpone the proposed action, alternative energy sources, system alternatives, energy conservation technologies and practices, a major pipeline route alternative and minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would be capable of 1.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day to the applicant's target markets, improving the reliability of natural gas delivery in those markets and helping to reduce the dependency of the United States on foreign sources of energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would cross 848 surface waterbodies and 301 wetlands, disturbing approximately 114.9 areas of wetlands. Conventional open-cut construction would be used to cross all but 64 of these waterbodies, which would be crossed using horizontal directional drilling. Special-status and high-quality wetlands , including wetlands in the National Resource Conservation Service-administered Wetland Reserve Program and Prior Converted Wetlands program, as well as several high-quality forested wetlands, would be affected by construction and operation of the system. Numerous acres of forested wetlands would be cleared and converted to emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands and maintained in those states within the permanent rights-of-way during operation. The pipelines would pass in the vicinity of several recreational and special interest areas, including the Ouachita Wildlife Management Area, the Pearl and Black rivers, Black Lake Bayou and Saline Bayou, the Natchez Trace Parkway, and the Tensas National Wildlife Refuge. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974(22 U.S.C. 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0041D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 070214, 624 pages, May 24, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0206D
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824377?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-05-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+TEXAS+TO+MISSISSIPPI+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+EASTERN+TEXAS%2C+NORTHERN+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+WESTERN+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP06-446-000%2C+PF06-17-000%2C+PF06-23-000%29.&rft.title=EAST+TEXAS+TO+MISSISSIPPI+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+EASTERN+TEXAS%2C+NORTHERN+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+WESTERN+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP06-446-000%2C+PF06-17-000%2C+PF06-23-000%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 24, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ATLANTIC RIM NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING (RECORD OF DECISION).
AN  - 36339977; 12702
AB  - PURPOSE: The development and operation of coalbed and conventional natural gas extraction and processing facilities by Anadarko E&P Company, LP, and associated companies, in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The project, known as the Atlantic Rim Natural Gas Development Project, would encompass a 270,080 acre area with federal surface ownership of 173,672 acres, state ownership of 14,060 acres, and private ownership of 82,348 acres. The development area currently contains 132 natural gas wells extending to coal formations under an exploratory interim drilling program. Wells, roads, pipelines, compressors, and other facilities have also been constructed in conjunction with the interim program. Under the applicants' proposal, the project would involve the development of natural gas resources within the tract by drilling up to an additional 2,000 wells, of which 1,800 would be drilled to coal beds and 200 to other formations, resulting in well spacing of up to 80 acres per well. Well spacing would allow for eight wells per section throughout the project area, but that number could be reduced to four wells per section depending on the geology and ability of the operators to release the water and pressure sufficiently to recover gas. Development and drilling would begin in 2006 within the area and continue for 20 years, with an expected project life of 30 to 50 years. Various drilling and production-related facilities (e.g., roads, pipelines, water wells, disposal wells, compressor stations, and gas processing facilities) would also be constructed throughout the area. In addition to the proposed action and the preferred alternative, the final EIS considered another action alternative and a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would implement a combination of the two action alternatives, which would result in the same development planned under the proposed action and development would occur over 20 years, but development would be phased over three periods. The first phase, which would occur over six to seven years, would involve development of 925 well locations in the vicinity of the Doty Mountain, Sundog/Cow Creek, and Blue Sky areas. Interim reclamation activities would be undertaken during the first phase. The extent of gas production facilities would grow, with an ultimate goal of reaching the same level of operational disturbance as the proposed action. Development expenditures are estimated at $981 million, although costs could be higher depending on development protection measures adopted. The attached record of decision provides the rationale for the selection of the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extraction of natural gas resources from the area would help meet the nation's need for energy supplies, particularly for natural gas, which has emerged as an important industrial and domestic fuel source. Development of domestic reserves would reduce the country's dependence on foreign sources of energy and maintain a supply of fuel for domestic consumption, industrial protection, power generation, and national security. Economic contributions due to drilling and field development are expected to amount to $1.25 billion. Up to $6.4 billion in total economic benefits would be expected from the project. Peak year drilling employment would be estimated at a maximum of 1,490 jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the coal-related natural gas resources would degrade regional waterbodies, including Muddy Creek, which is under special state protection due to its sensitive fish habitat. Salinity loading in runoff would increase above background levels, and wetland hydrologic function would be significantly altered. Significant reductions in animal unit months, livestock mortality, and disturbance to grazing systems would affect area range operations. Ground disturbances and drilling, extraction, and ancillary structures would have significant impacts on shrub-dependent songbird nesting sites and grouse and raptor habitat, mule deer and elk habitat, visual and other recreational values, and cultural resources. The influx of employees into the area would place some stress on local housing and some public services infrastructure. Noise standards would be violated temporarily at drilling and other activity sites within the project area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0021D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 060488, 78 pages, May 23, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-07/011+1310
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coal Gasification
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Disposal
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Reclamation Plans
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36339977?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-05-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ATLANTIC+RIM+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=ATLANTIC+RIM+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 23, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BUCKMAN WATER DIVERSION PROJECT, SANTA FE NATIONAL FOREST, SANTA FE, SANTA FE COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - BUCKMAN WATER DIVERSION PROJECT, SANTA FE NATIONAL FOREST, SANTA FE, SANTA FE COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 756824720; 12843-070192_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The diversion of water from the Rio Grande for irrigation purposes and to provide water for the Santa Fe area, Santee Fe County, New Mexico is proposed. The Buckman Water Diversion Project would address the immediate need for a sustainable means of accessing water supplies for the city and the county, as well as Las Campas Limited Partnership. Near-term demand for water in the region would not be satisfied by the current supply system. Most of the water to be diverted would be delivered from the San Juan-Chama Project, a US Bureau of Reclamation inter-basin water transfer project. The remainder would be native water rights owned by the parties and diverted from the Rio Grande. The proposed action would include a diversion structure at the Rio Grande water transmission facilities, including pumps and booster station buildings, water tanks, settling ponds and pipes, water treatment facilities, and electric power improvements, and construction of road improvements necessary to build and operate the facilities. Key issues identified during scoping include land tenure and use, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and scenic resources. Alternatives considered in this final EIS include a No Action Alternative, the proposed action, sediment facility alternatives, pipeline route alternatives for raw water and treated water pipelines, and power upgrade alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The diversion proposal would prevent continued depletion of the aquifer in the Buckman areas and the flows of the Rio Grande and its tributaries. The city would no longer be required to offset depletions with releases of San Juan-Chama water into the Rio Grande and by retiring native water rights owned by the city with respect to the Rio Grande and two of its tributaries. Projected water demand would be satisfied. In addition, road improvements would enhance transportation management in the area. Depressed groundwater levels near the Buckman diversion sites would rebound over a time period of several decades, possibly as much as 100 feet in some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 59 acres would be affected permanently due to the improvements to Buckman Road, construction of the diversion structure, sediment facility booster stations, water treatment plants, and associated infrastructure. Work areas would cover a total of 247 acres, potentially affecting 16 species of federally protected species, including the Rio Grande silvery minnow downstream of the project. Some less mobile reptile species, amphibians, and small mammals would suffer direct mortality. The project infrastructure would permanently displace predator hunting areas. Increased noise levels would also affect wildlife. Special use and rights-of-way permits would need to be issued. The construction and operation of the new Public Service Company of New Mexico substation near the municipal recreation complex would displace two acres of grazing land from one grazing ease, resulting in a slight loss of livestock forage. The average flow of the Rio Grande would decline by less than one percent, most of which will be imported into the Rio Grande from the inner-basin San-Juan Chama Project. The county would be required to acquire water rights in order to use the diversion fully, and Las Campanas would be required to extend their lease rights. Structures in the historic town of Buckman and the Delver and Rio Grande railroad corridor would be physically disturbed by the sediment facility. During coffer dam construction and demolition, downstream areas of the Rio Grande would experience turbidity. Visual aesthetics would be degraded by the presence of facilities, as might sacred Native American sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0437D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 070192, 293 pages, May 11, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Birds
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Rio Grande
KW  - Santa Fe National Forest
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824720?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-05-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUCKMAN+WATER+DIVERSION+PROJECT%2C+SANTA+FE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+SANTA+FE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=BUCKMAN+WATER+DIVERSION+PROJECT%2C+SANTA+FE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+SANTA+FE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Espanola, New Mexico; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 11, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BUCKMAN WATER DIVERSION PROJECT, SANTA FE NATIONAL FOREST, SANTA FE, SANTA FE COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 36348558; 12843
AB  - PURPOSE: The diversion of water from the Rio Grande for irrigation purposes and to provide water for the Santa Fe area, Santee Fe County, New Mexico is proposed. The Buckman Water Diversion Project would address the immediate need for a sustainable means of accessing water supplies for the city and the county, as well as Las Campas Limited Partnership. Near-term demand for water in the region would not be satisfied by the current supply system. Most of the water to be diverted would be delivered from the San Juan-Chama Project, a US Bureau of Reclamation inter-basin water transfer project. The remainder would be native water rights owned by the parties and diverted from the Rio Grande. The proposed action would include a diversion structure at the Rio Grande water transmission facilities, including pumps and booster station buildings, water tanks, settling ponds and pipes, water treatment facilities, and electric power improvements, and construction of road improvements necessary to build and operate the facilities. Key issues identified during scoping include land tenure and use, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and scenic resources. Alternatives considered in this final EIS include a No Action Alternative, the proposed action, sediment facility alternatives, pipeline route alternatives for raw water and treated water pipelines, and power upgrade alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The diversion proposal would prevent continued depletion of the aquifer in the Buckman areas and the flows of the Rio Grande and its tributaries. The city would no longer be required to offset depletions with releases of San Juan-Chama water into the Rio Grande and by retiring native water rights owned by the city with respect to the Rio Grande and two of its tributaries. Projected water demand would be satisfied. In addition, road improvements would enhance transportation management in the area. Depressed groundwater levels near the Buckman diversion sites would rebound over a time period of several decades, possibly as much as 100 feet in some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 59 acres would be affected permanently due to the improvements to Buckman Road, construction of the diversion structure, sediment facility booster stations, water treatment plants, and associated infrastructure. Work areas would cover a total of 247 acres, potentially affecting 16 species of federally protected species, including the Rio Grande silvery minnow downstream of the project. Some less mobile reptile species, amphibians, and small mammals would suffer direct mortality. The project infrastructure would permanently displace predator hunting areas. Increased noise levels would also affect wildlife. Special use and rights-of-way permits would need to be issued. The construction and operation of the new Public Service Company of New Mexico substation near the municipal recreation complex would displace two acres of grazing land from one grazing ease, resulting in a slight loss of livestock forage. The average flow of the Rio Grande would decline by less than one percent, most of which will be imported into the Rio Grande from the inner-basin San-Juan Chama Project. The county would be required to acquire water rights in order to use the diversion fully, and Las Campanas would be required to extend their lease rights. Structures in the historic town of Buckman and the Delver and Rio Grande railroad corridor would be physically disturbed by the sediment facility. During coffer dam construction and demolition, downstream areas of the Rio Grande would experience turbidity. Visual aesthetics would be degraded by the presence of facilities, as might sacred Native American sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0437D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 070192, 293 pages, May 11, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Water
KW  - Birds
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Rio Grande
KW  - Santa Fe National Forest
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348558?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-05-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUCKMAN+WATER+DIVERSION+PROJECT%2C+SANTA+FE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+SANTA+FE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=BUCKMAN+WATER+DIVERSION+PROJECT%2C+SANTA+FE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+SANTA+FE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Espanola, New Mexico; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 11, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PHOENIX EXPANSION PROJECT, EXTENDING BETWEEN PINAL AND MARICOPA COUNTIES, ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO (Docket No. CP06-459-000).
AN  - 36346142; 12710
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Arizona and New Mexico to provide for the energy needs of the growing region centered around Phoenix, Arizona. The project would also require the granting of rights-of-way and/or temporary use permits for portions of the corridor passing through the Kaibab and Prescott national forests and land administered by the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (Hassayampa and Lower Sonoran resource Management areas), Bureau of Reclamation, and Navajo Nation land administered cooperatively by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Navajo Nation. The project would involve construction of 24.6 miles of 36-inch piping loop extending along the existing San Juan Lateral in San Juan and McKinley counties, New Mexico; construction of a Phoenix Lateral, consisting of 95.7 miles of 42-inch lateral pipeline extending from milepost (MP) 0.0 in Yavapai County, Arizona to MP 95.2 in Maricopa County, Arizona, and 163.6 miles of 36-inch lateral pipeline extending from MP 95.2 in Maricopa County to MP 255.1 in Pinal County, Arizona; construction of 1.4 miles of new 16-, 20-, and 24-inch lateral pipeline connecting the Phoenix Lateral to meter stations not located immediately adjacent to the lateral rights-of-way; implementation of minor piping and pressure control modifications at the existing Bloodfield Compressor Station in San Juan County, New Mexico and at the existing Seligman Compressor Station No. 1 in Mojave County, Arizona; installation of the Ash Fork Facility at MP 0.0 of the Phoenix Lateral in Yavapai County, Arizona, including two filter separators, odorant injection facilities, and telecommunications equipment; and installation of four taps, 31 valves, 11 meter stations, six pig launchers, and three pig receivers. Transwestern would also acquire an undivided interest in the existing east Valley Lateral, which consists of 36.7 miles of 24-inch lateral pipeline in Pinal and Maricopa counties, Arizona. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, eight pipeline route alternatives and six route variations, and 31 deviations from the existing rights-of-way. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facilities would allow for the transportation of 500 million cubic feet per day of natural gas to the Phoenix area, one of the fastest growing regions of the country. The pipeline would not only help to satisfy the increasing demand for electricity and natural gas, but would also increase competition in the regional energy market, thereby working to stabilize consumer costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 5,951.3 acres of land, 66 percent of which would be rangeland. Facilities operation would affect 2,073 acres, including 1,730.7 acres of permanent rights-of-way, 14.5 acres of aboveground facility sites, and 328.1 acres of permanent access roads. Pipeline would cross eight perennial waterbodies and 791 intermittent and ephemeral waterbodies. Rivers to be crossed include the San Juan River in New Mexico, which supports the federally protected Colorado pike minnow and razorback sucker, and the Verde River in Arizona, which supports the federally protected pike dace and its designated critical habitat. The pipeline would traverse seven developments that are under construction, 13 approved developments, and 16 proposed developments. At this time, the proposed work corridor lies within 500 feet of two residences within these developments. A total of 222 cultural resource sites were recorded during surveys preparatory to this EIS. 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.), Hazardous Liquids Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 (49 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968.
JF  - EPA number: 070171, 666 pages, April 26, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0298D
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Kaibab National Forest
KW  - Hassayampa Resource Management Area
KW  - Lower Sonoran Resource Management Area
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Prescott National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Hazardous Liquids Pipeline Safety Act of 1979, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346142?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-04-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+BETWEEN+PINAL+AND+MARICOPA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA+AND+NEW+MEXICO+%28Docket+No.+CP06-459-000%29.&rft.title=PHOENIX+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+BETWEEN+PINAL+AND+MARICOPA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA+AND+NEW+MEXICO+%28Docket+No.+CP06-459-000%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 26, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT, ALABAMA, LOUISIANA, AND MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP07-44-000 AND CP07-45-000).
AN  - 36340483; 12711
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi is proposed. The facilities to be put in place and operated by the applicant, Southeast Supply Header, LLC, would include 270 miles of pipeline and associated ancillary facilities capable of transporting up to 1.14 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. More specifically, the facilities would include 104 miles of 420 inch pipeline extending southeasterly from Richland Parish, Louisiana to Lawrence County, Mississippi; 165 miles of 36-inch pipeline extending southeasterly from Lawrence County to Mobile County, Alabama; 1.7 miles of six-, 16-, 20, 24, and 42-inch laterals in Jefferson Davis, Covington, and Forrest counties, Mississippi and Mobile, Alabama; three new compressor stations, one each in Richland Parish Louisiana and Jefferson Davis and George counties, Mississippi; two booster stations, one each in Covington and Forrest counties, Mississippi; and other ancillary facilities, including 13 meter and regulator installations, 18 mainline valves, two tap valves, and three pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. If approved, the project would commence implementation in November 2007. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, aboveground facilities site alternatives, pipeline route alternatives and route variations, and deviations from the existing rights-of-way. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed pipeline facilities would provide new gas transportation capacity that would significantly enhance access to reliable onshore gas supplies to serve growing demand in the southeastern United States. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would affect soils, groundwater, surface water, wetlands, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and ambient air quality and noise levels. The primary impacts would be related to wetlands, waterbodies, land use, and special interest areas. The pipeline would traverse more than 650 surface waterbodies. All but 31 of the crossings would be undertaken using conventional open-cut construction techniques; the remaining crossings would be made using horizontal directional drilling methods. Waterbodies to be crossed include nine major navigable streams, seven National Rivers Inventory-listed streams, five rivers and streams likely to contain habitat for federally protected species, and 10 impaired waterbodies. The pipeline would also traverse 267 wetlands, disturbing 238.8 acres and affecting special status wetlands in some cases. Approximately 102.8 acres of forested wetlands would be cleared during construction, resulting in their conversion into emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands. The project would cross recreational and special interest areas, including Conservation Reserve Program lands, a Nature Conservancy wetland mitigation site known as the Natchez Trace Parkway, Highway 90 (Old Spanish Trail), and lands administered by the Tensas National Wildlife Refuge. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968.
JF  - EPA number: 070172, 422 pages, April 26, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0211D
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36340483?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-04-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+SUPPLY+HEADER+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-44-000+AND+CP07-45-000%29.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+SUPPLY+HEADER+PROJECT%2C+ALABAMA%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-44-000+AND+CP07-45-000%29.&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 - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 26, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT, ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA.
AN  - 36350366; 12709
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the 20-acre Castillo de San Marcos National Monument site in St. Augustine, Florida is proposed. The Castillo served primarily as an outpost of the Spanish Empire. It was subsequently held by the British and again by the Spanish, who held it until Florida was purchased from Spain in 1821. The fort also figures in the histories of the Civil War and the American Indian wars. The proposed plan, which would be the first general management for the monument, which was established in 1924 as the Fort Marion National Monument, would direct management of the site for the next 15 to 20 years. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would focus on the rehabilitation and maintenance of the historic character of the fort and the landscape to the greatest extent achievable while providing for greater on-site visitor services by locating the visitor center at the north end of the site. Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, would represent a greater effort to achieve a more historic character to the site when compared to Alternative B by removing non-historic elements from the fort casemates and landscape and by locating the visitor center off-site. Alternative D would focus on preservation of the fort through removal of ranger offices from the casements and relocation of the offices to a new structure in the visitor center zone. The ticket booth and sales function would be relocated away from the fort entrance to a site compatible with the historic character of the fort. Alternative D would result in little change from existing conditions with respect to the landscape and the visitor parking lot and no visitor center would be provided. Additional parking would be available at a city parking garage currently under construction behind the existing visitor information center. First cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $4.8 million, annual cost at $1.83 million, and total 30-year cost at $59.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The archaeological and historic resources within the site would benefit from increased protection and enhanced interpretation. Visitation would contribute moderately to the economy of St. Augustine. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Visitation and other uses in the vicinity of the site would continue to affect archaeologic and historic resources adversely. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 6166, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625), Presidential Proclamation 1713, and Public Law 108-480. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0360D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 070170, 119 pages, April 25, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 07-12
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Castillo De San Marcos National Monument
KW  - Florida
KW  - Fort Marion National Monument
KW  - Executive Order 6166, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 1713, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350366?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+CASTILLO+DE+SAN+MARCOS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+ST.+AUGUSTINE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+CASTILLO+DE+SAN+MARCOS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+ST.+AUGUSTINE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, St. Augustine, Florida; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 25, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WHITE PINE ENERGY STATION PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 7]
T2  - WHITE PINE ENERGY STATION PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 756824659; 13620-080394_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way for the construction and operation of a 1,590-megawatt coal-fired power plant and associated facilities on federal lands, administered by the Bureau of Land Management, in White Pine County, Nevada is proposed. More specifically, the White Pine Energy Station would be located in the Steptoe Valley Hydrographic Basin, approximately 34 miles north of Ely, 22 miles north of McGill, and one mile west of U.S. 93 in eastern Nevada. Three alterative, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The applicant's proposal, which is the preferred alternative, would involve granting rights-of-way for the power plant, electric transmission facilities, a water supply system, rail spur, an access road, and additional construction areas. In addition the applicant would undertake the Moriah Ranches Seeding Project. The power plant would feature a hybrid cooling system, employing up to three 550-foot-tall natural draft cooling towers to reject heat from the steam condensers. Cooling water would be taken from the local aquifer via eight wells to be located north of the plant site and delivered to the plant via 12 miles of 10- to 30-inch pipeline. To pump water from the wells through the pipeline, 13 miles of 13.8-kilovolt (kV) overhead distribution lines would be constructed. Power generated by the station would be transmitted to the regional grid via a 2.5-mile loop of 500-kilovolt-kV overhead powerline connecting the station to the Duck Creek Substation and a 32-mile 500-kV overhead power line connecting the Duck Creek Substation to the Thirtymile Substation. The Duck Creek and Thirtymile substations, which would be constructed as a part of the project, would be situated, respectively, on a 60-acre site at the power plant and a 77-acre site near Robinson Summit. Coal would be transported to the site via a 1.3-mile rail spur crossing Duck Creek to connect to the to the Nevada Northern Railway (NNR) line. Vehicular access to the plant would be provided by a one-mile paved access road extending to the site from U.S. 93. A 40-acre earth and rock borrow area would be required to provide fill materials for the project. Mitigation measures would include the implementation of the Moriah Ranches Seeding Project, which would involve the seeding of 700 to 900 acres to improve forage for livestock and wildlife on public lands located 16 miles north of McGill and immediately west of U.S. 93. The proposed action has been selected as the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new plant would help to meet baseload electricity demand in Nevada and elsewhere in the western United States. The facility would supply reliable, low-cost electrically in an environmentally responsible manner, while boosting the economy of White Pine County through the provision of employment and the purchase of goods and services. hence, water rights held by White Pine County would be put to beneficial use. The Moriah Ranches Seeding Project would enhance wildlife range habitat on 700 to 900 acres. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station construction activities would disturb 1,902 acres and the project would result in the permanent disturbance of 1,5100 acres and the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat. The groundwater table in the vicinity of the cooling water system production wells would be drawn down, potentially reducing the flow of 12 area springs. Though unlikely, it would be possible that bald eagle habitat could be affected. Emission during station operations would meet federal air quality standards, but some potential exceedances of federal standards with respect to visibility could occur in the Jarbidge Wilderness Area and Zion National Park. In addition acid deposition and visibility standards could be exceeded in the Great Basin National Park and Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. The smoke stacks and cooling towers, as well as the transmission lines, would be visible from Steptoe Valley, and visual intrusion at location would violate visual resource management objectives. One prehistoric site and a segment of the NNR, both of which are considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1857 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080394, Final EIS (Volume I)--539 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume II--341 pages and maps, Appendices A through Q--417 pages and maps, Appendices R through U--615 pages and maps, April 13, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI-08/24+1793
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Cooling Systems
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Ely Resource Management Area
KW  - Great Basin National Park
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Jarbidge Wilderness Area
KW  - Zion National Park
KW  - Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge
KW  - Clean Air Act of 1970, Prevention of Significant Deterioration
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824659?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-04-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE+PINE+ENERGY+STATION+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WHITE+PINE+ENERGY+STATION+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ely, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 13, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WHITE PINE ENERGY STATION PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 7]
T2  - WHITE PINE ENERGY STATION PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 756824648; 13620-080394_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way for the construction and operation of a 1,590-megawatt coal-fired power plant and associated facilities on federal lands, administered by the Bureau of Land Management, in White Pine County, Nevada is proposed. More specifically, the White Pine Energy Station would be located in the Steptoe Valley Hydrographic Basin, approximately 34 miles north of Ely, 22 miles north of McGill, and one mile west of U.S. 93 in eastern Nevada. Three alterative, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The applicant's proposal, which is the preferred alternative, would involve granting rights-of-way for the power plant, electric transmission facilities, a water supply system, rail spur, an access road, and additional construction areas. In addition the applicant would undertake the Moriah Ranches Seeding Project. The power plant would feature a hybrid cooling system, employing up to three 550-foot-tall natural draft cooling towers to reject heat from the steam condensers. Cooling water would be taken from the local aquifer via eight wells to be located north of the plant site and delivered to the plant via 12 miles of 10- to 30-inch pipeline. To pump water from the wells through the pipeline, 13 miles of 13.8-kilovolt (kV) overhead distribution lines would be constructed. Power generated by the station would be transmitted to the regional grid via a 2.5-mile loop of 500-kilovolt-kV overhead powerline connecting the station to the Duck Creek Substation and a 32-mile 500-kV overhead power line connecting the Duck Creek Substation to the Thirtymile Substation. The Duck Creek and Thirtymile substations, which would be constructed as a part of the project, would be situated, respectively, on a 60-acre site at the power plant and a 77-acre site near Robinson Summit. Coal would be transported to the site via a 1.3-mile rail spur crossing Duck Creek to connect to the to the Nevada Northern Railway (NNR) line. Vehicular access to the plant would be provided by a one-mile paved access road extending to the site from U.S. 93. A 40-acre earth and rock borrow area would be required to provide fill materials for the project. Mitigation measures would include the implementation of the Moriah Ranches Seeding Project, which would involve the seeding of 700 to 900 acres to improve forage for livestock and wildlife on public lands located 16 miles north of McGill and immediately west of U.S. 93. The proposed action has been selected as the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new plant would help to meet baseload electricity demand in Nevada and elsewhere in the western United States. The facility would supply reliable, low-cost electrically in an environmentally responsible manner, while boosting the economy of White Pine County through the provision of employment and the purchase of goods and services. hence, water rights held by White Pine County would be put to beneficial use. The Moriah Ranches Seeding Project would enhance wildlife range habitat on 700 to 900 acres. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station construction activities would disturb 1,902 acres and the project would result in the permanent disturbance of 1,5100 acres and the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat. The groundwater table in the vicinity of the cooling water system production wells would be drawn down, potentially reducing the flow of 12 area springs. Though unlikely, it would be possible that bald eagle habitat could be affected. Emission during station operations would meet federal air quality standards, but some potential exceedances of federal standards with respect to visibility could occur in the Jarbidge Wilderness Area and Zion National Park. In addition acid deposition and visibility standards could be exceeded in the Great Basin National Park and Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. The smoke stacks and cooling towers, as well as the transmission lines, would be visible from Steptoe Valley, and visual intrusion at location would violate visual resource management objectives. One prehistoric site and a segment of the NNR, both of which are considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1857 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080394, Final EIS (Volume I)--539 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume II--341 pages and maps, Appendices A through Q--417 pages and maps, Appendices R through U--615 pages and maps, April 13, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI-08/24+1793
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Cooling Systems
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Ely Resource Management Area
KW  - Great Basin National Park
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Jarbidge Wilderness Area
KW  - Zion National Park
KW  - Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge
KW  - Clean Air Act of 1970, Prevention of Significant Deterioration
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824648?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-04-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE+PINE+ENERGY+STATION+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WHITE+PINE+ENERGY+STATION+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ely, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 13, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WHITE PINE ENERGY STATION PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 7]
T2  - WHITE PINE ENERGY STATION PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 756824640; 13620-080394_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way for the construction and operation of a 1,590-megawatt coal-fired power plant and associated facilities on federal lands, administered by the Bureau of Land Management, in White Pine County, Nevada is proposed. More specifically, the White Pine Energy Station would be located in the Steptoe Valley Hydrographic Basin, approximately 34 miles north of Ely, 22 miles north of McGill, and one mile west of U.S. 93 in eastern Nevada. Three alterative, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The applicant's proposal, which is the preferred alternative, would involve granting rights-of-way for the power plant, electric transmission facilities, a water supply system, rail spur, an access road, and additional construction areas. In addition the applicant would undertake the Moriah Ranches Seeding Project. The power plant would feature a hybrid cooling system, employing up to three 550-foot-tall natural draft cooling towers to reject heat from the steam condensers. Cooling water would be taken from the local aquifer via eight wells to be located north of the plant site and delivered to the plant via 12 miles of 10- to 30-inch pipeline. To pump water from the wells through the pipeline, 13 miles of 13.8-kilovolt (kV) overhead distribution lines would be constructed. Power generated by the station would be transmitted to the regional grid via a 2.5-mile loop of 500-kilovolt-kV overhead powerline connecting the station to the Duck Creek Substation and a 32-mile 500-kV overhead power line connecting the Duck Creek Substation to the Thirtymile Substation. The Duck Creek and Thirtymile substations, which would be constructed as a part of the project, would be situated, respectively, on a 60-acre site at the power plant and a 77-acre site near Robinson Summit. Coal would be transported to the site via a 1.3-mile rail spur crossing Duck Creek to connect to the to the Nevada Northern Railway (NNR) line. Vehicular access to the plant would be provided by a one-mile paved access road extending to the site from U.S. 93. A 40-acre earth and rock borrow area would be required to provide fill materials for the project. Mitigation measures would include the implementation of the Moriah Ranches Seeding Project, which would involve the seeding of 700 to 900 acres to improve forage for livestock and wildlife on public lands located 16 miles north of McGill and immediately west of U.S. 93. The proposed action has been selected as the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new plant would help to meet baseload electricity demand in Nevada and elsewhere in the western United States. The facility would supply reliable, low-cost electrically in an environmentally responsible manner, while boosting the economy of White Pine County through the provision of employment and the purchase of goods and services. hence, water rights held by White Pine County would be put to beneficial use. The Moriah Ranches Seeding Project would enhance wildlife range habitat on 700 to 900 acres. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station construction activities would disturb 1,902 acres and the project would result in the permanent disturbance of 1,5100 acres and the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat. The groundwater table in the vicinity of the cooling water system production wells would be drawn down, potentially reducing the flow of 12 area springs. Though unlikely, it would be possible that bald eagle habitat could be affected. Emission during station operations would meet federal air quality standards, but some potential exceedances of federal standards with respect to visibility could occur in the Jarbidge Wilderness Area and Zion National Park. In addition acid deposition and visibility standards could be exceeded in the Great Basin National Park and Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. The smoke stacks and cooling towers, as well as the transmission lines, would be visible from Steptoe Valley, and visual intrusion at location would violate visual resource management objectives. One prehistoric site and a segment of the NNR, both of which are considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1857 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080394, Final EIS (Volume I)--539 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume II--341 pages and maps, Appendices A through Q--417 pages and maps, Appendices R through U--615 pages and maps, April 13, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI-08/24+1793
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Cooling Systems
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Ely Resource Management Area
KW  - Great Basin National Park
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Jarbidge Wilderness Area
KW  - Zion National Park
KW  - Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge
KW  - Clean Air Act of 1970, Prevention of Significant Deterioration
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824640?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-04-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE+PINE+ENERGY+STATION+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WHITE+PINE+ENERGY+STATION+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ely, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 13, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WHITE PINE ENERGY STATION PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 7]
T2  - WHITE PINE ENERGY STATION PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 756824605; 13620-080394_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way for the construction and operation of a 1,590-megawatt coal-fired power plant and associated facilities on federal lands, administered by the Bureau of Land Management, in White Pine County, Nevada is proposed. More specifically, the White Pine Energy Station would be located in the Steptoe Valley Hydrographic Basin, approximately 34 miles north of Ely, 22 miles north of McGill, and one mile west of U.S. 93 in eastern Nevada. Three alterative, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The applicant's proposal, which is the preferred alternative, would involve granting rights-of-way for the power plant, electric transmission facilities, a water supply system, rail spur, an access road, and additional construction areas. In addition the applicant would undertake the Moriah Ranches Seeding Project. The power plant would feature a hybrid cooling system, employing up to three 550-foot-tall natural draft cooling towers to reject heat from the steam condensers. Cooling water would be taken from the local aquifer via eight wells to be located north of the plant site and delivered to the plant via 12 miles of 10- to 30-inch pipeline. To pump water from the wells through the pipeline, 13 miles of 13.8-kilovolt (kV) overhead distribution lines would be constructed. Power generated by the station would be transmitted to the regional grid via a 2.5-mile loop of 500-kilovolt-kV overhead powerline connecting the station to the Duck Creek Substation and a 32-mile 500-kV overhead power line connecting the Duck Creek Substation to the Thirtymile Substation. The Duck Creek and Thirtymile substations, which would be constructed as a part of the project, would be situated, respectively, on a 60-acre site at the power plant and a 77-acre site near Robinson Summit. Coal would be transported to the site via a 1.3-mile rail spur crossing Duck Creek to connect to the to the Nevada Northern Railway (NNR) line. Vehicular access to the plant would be provided by a one-mile paved access road extending to the site from U.S. 93. A 40-acre earth and rock borrow area would be required to provide fill materials for the project. Mitigation measures would include the implementation of the Moriah Ranches Seeding Project, which would involve the seeding of 700 to 900 acres to improve forage for livestock and wildlife on public lands located 16 miles north of McGill and immediately west of U.S. 93. The proposed action has been selected as the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new plant would help to meet baseload electricity demand in Nevada and elsewhere in the western United States. The facility would supply reliable, low-cost electrically in an environmentally responsible manner, while boosting the economy of White Pine County through the provision of employment and the purchase of goods and services. hence, water rights held by White Pine County would be put to beneficial use. The Moriah Ranches Seeding Project would enhance wildlife range habitat on 700 to 900 acres. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station construction activities would disturb 1,902 acres and the project would result in the permanent disturbance of 1,5100 acres and the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat. The groundwater table in the vicinity of the cooling water system production wells would be drawn down, potentially reducing the flow of 12 area springs. Though unlikely, it would be possible that bald eagle habitat could be affected. Emission during station operations would meet federal air quality standards, but some potential exceedances of federal standards with respect to visibility could occur in the Jarbidge Wilderness Area and Zion National Park. In addition acid deposition and visibility standards could be exceeded in the Great Basin National Park and Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. The smoke stacks and cooling towers, as well as the transmission lines, would be visible from Steptoe Valley, and visual intrusion at location would violate visual resource management objectives. One prehistoric site and a segment of the NNR, both of which are considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1857 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080394, Final EIS (Volume I)--539 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume II--341 pages and maps, Appendices A through Q--417 pages and maps, Appendices R through U--615 pages and maps, April 13, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI-08/24+1793
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Cooling Systems
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Ely Resource Management Area
KW  - Great Basin National Park
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Jarbidge Wilderness Area
KW  - Zion National Park
KW  - Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge
KW  - Clean Air Act of 1970, Prevention of Significant Deterioration
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824605?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-04-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE+PINE+ENERGY+STATION+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WHITE+PINE+ENERGY+STATION+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ely, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 13, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WHITE PINE ENERGY STATION PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 7 of 7]
T2  - WHITE PINE ENERGY STATION PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 756824543; 13620-080394_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way for the construction and operation of a 1,590-megawatt coal-fired power plant and associated facilities on federal lands, administered by the Bureau of Land Management, in White Pine County, Nevada is proposed. More specifically, the White Pine Energy Station would be located in the Steptoe Valley Hydrographic Basin, approximately 34 miles north of Ely, 22 miles north of McGill, and one mile west of U.S. 93 in eastern Nevada. Three alterative, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The applicant's proposal, which is the preferred alternative, would involve granting rights-of-way for the power plant, electric transmission facilities, a water supply system, rail spur, an access road, and additional construction areas. In addition the applicant would undertake the Moriah Ranches Seeding Project. The power plant would feature a hybrid cooling system, employing up to three 550-foot-tall natural draft cooling towers to reject heat from the steam condensers. Cooling water would be taken from the local aquifer via eight wells to be located north of the plant site and delivered to the plant via 12 miles of 10- to 30-inch pipeline. To pump water from the wells through the pipeline, 13 miles of 13.8-kilovolt (kV) overhead distribution lines would be constructed. Power generated by the station would be transmitted to the regional grid via a 2.5-mile loop of 500-kilovolt-kV overhead powerline connecting the station to the Duck Creek Substation and a 32-mile 500-kV overhead power line connecting the Duck Creek Substation to the Thirtymile Substation. The Duck Creek and Thirtymile substations, which would be constructed as a part of the project, would be situated, respectively, on a 60-acre site at the power plant and a 77-acre site near Robinson Summit. Coal would be transported to the site via a 1.3-mile rail spur crossing Duck Creek to connect to the to the Nevada Northern Railway (NNR) line. Vehicular access to the plant would be provided by a one-mile paved access road extending to the site from U.S. 93. A 40-acre earth and rock borrow area would be required to provide fill materials for the project. Mitigation measures would include the implementation of the Moriah Ranches Seeding Project, which would involve the seeding of 700 to 900 acres to improve forage for livestock and wildlife on public lands located 16 miles north of McGill and immediately west of U.S. 93. The proposed action has been selected as the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new plant would help to meet baseload electricity demand in Nevada and elsewhere in the western United States. The facility would supply reliable, low-cost electrically in an environmentally responsible manner, while boosting the economy of White Pine County through the provision of employment and the purchase of goods and services. hence, water rights held by White Pine County would be put to beneficial use. The Moriah Ranches Seeding Project would enhance wildlife range habitat on 700 to 900 acres. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station construction activities would disturb 1,902 acres and the project would result in the permanent disturbance of 1,5100 acres and the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat. The groundwater table in the vicinity of the cooling water system production wells would be drawn down, potentially reducing the flow of 12 area springs. Though unlikely, it would be possible that bald eagle habitat could be affected. Emission during station operations would meet federal air quality standards, but some potential exceedances of federal standards with respect to visibility could occur in the Jarbidge Wilderness Area and Zion National Park. In addition acid deposition and visibility standards could be exceeded in the Great Basin National Park and Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. The smoke stacks and cooling towers, as well as the transmission lines, would be visible from Steptoe Valley, and visual intrusion at location would violate visual resource management objectives. One prehistoric site and a segment of the NNR, both of which are considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1857 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080394, Final EIS (Volume I)--539 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume II--341 pages and maps, Appendices A through Q--417 pages and maps, Appendices R through U--615 pages and maps, April 13, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 7
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI-08/24+1793
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Cooling Systems
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Ely Resource Management Area
KW  - Great Basin National Park
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Jarbidge Wilderness Area
KW  - Zion National Park
KW  - Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge
KW  - Clean Air Act of 1970, Prevention of Significant Deterioration
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824543?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-04-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE+PINE+ENERGY+STATION+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WHITE+PINE+ENERGY+STATION+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ely, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 13, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WHITE PINE ENERGY STATION PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 7]
T2  - WHITE PINE ENERGY STATION PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 756824542; 13620-080394_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way for the construction and operation of a 1,590-megawatt coal-fired power plant and associated facilities on federal lands, administered by the Bureau of Land Management, in White Pine County, Nevada is proposed. More specifically, the White Pine Energy Station would be located in the Steptoe Valley Hydrographic Basin, approximately 34 miles north of Ely, 22 miles north of McGill, and one mile west of U.S. 93 in eastern Nevada. Three alterative, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The applicant's proposal, which is the preferred alternative, would involve granting rights-of-way for the power plant, electric transmission facilities, a water supply system, rail spur, an access road, and additional construction areas. In addition the applicant would undertake the Moriah Ranches Seeding Project. The power plant would feature a hybrid cooling system, employing up to three 550-foot-tall natural draft cooling towers to reject heat from the steam condensers. Cooling water would be taken from the local aquifer via eight wells to be located north of the plant site and delivered to the plant via 12 miles of 10- to 30-inch pipeline. To pump water from the wells through the pipeline, 13 miles of 13.8-kilovolt (kV) overhead distribution lines would be constructed. Power generated by the station would be transmitted to the regional grid via a 2.5-mile loop of 500-kilovolt-kV overhead powerline connecting the station to the Duck Creek Substation and a 32-mile 500-kV overhead power line connecting the Duck Creek Substation to the Thirtymile Substation. The Duck Creek and Thirtymile substations, which would be constructed as a part of the project, would be situated, respectively, on a 60-acre site at the power plant and a 77-acre site near Robinson Summit. Coal would be transported to the site via a 1.3-mile rail spur crossing Duck Creek to connect to the to the Nevada Northern Railway (NNR) line. Vehicular access to the plant would be provided by a one-mile paved access road extending to the site from U.S. 93. A 40-acre earth and rock borrow area would be required to provide fill materials for the project. Mitigation measures would include the implementation of the Moriah Ranches Seeding Project, which would involve the seeding of 700 to 900 acres to improve forage for livestock and wildlife on public lands located 16 miles north of McGill and immediately west of U.S. 93. The proposed action has been selected as the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new plant would help to meet baseload electricity demand in Nevada and elsewhere in the western United States. The facility would supply reliable, low-cost electrically in an environmentally responsible manner, while boosting the economy of White Pine County through the provision of employment and the purchase of goods and services. hence, water rights held by White Pine County would be put to beneficial use. The Moriah Ranches Seeding Project would enhance wildlife range habitat on 700 to 900 acres. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station construction activities would disturb 1,902 acres and the project would result in the permanent disturbance of 1,5100 acres and the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat. The groundwater table in the vicinity of the cooling water system production wells would be drawn down, potentially reducing the flow of 12 area springs. Though unlikely, it would be possible that bald eagle habitat could be affected. Emission during station operations would meet federal air quality standards, but some potential exceedances of federal standards with respect to visibility could occur in the Jarbidge Wilderness Area and Zion National Park. In addition acid deposition and visibility standards could be exceeded in the Great Basin National Park and Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. The smoke stacks and cooling towers, as well as the transmission lines, would be visible from Steptoe Valley, and visual intrusion at location would violate visual resource management objectives. One prehistoric site and a segment of the NNR, both of which are considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1857 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080394, Final EIS (Volume I)--539 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume II--341 pages and maps, Appendices A through Q--417 pages and maps, Appendices R through U--615 pages and maps, April 13, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI-08/24+1793
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Cooling Systems
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Ely Resource Management Area
KW  - Great Basin National Park
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Jarbidge Wilderness Area
KW  - Zion National Park
KW  - Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge
KW  - Clean Air Act of 1970, Prevention of Significant Deterioration
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824542?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-04-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE+PINE+ENERGY+STATION+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WHITE+PINE+ENERGY+STATION+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ely, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 13, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WHITE PINE ENERGY STATION PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 7]
T2  - WHITE PINE ENERGY STATION PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 756824497; 13620-080394_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way for the construction and operation of a 1,590-megawatt coal-fired power plant and associated facilities on federal lands, administered by the Bureau of Land Management, in White Pine County, Nevada is proposed. More specifically, the White Pine Energy Station would be located in the Steptoe Valley Hydrographic Basin, approximately 34 miles north of Ely, 22 miles north of McGill, and one mile west of U.S. 93 in eastern Nevada. Three alterative, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The applicant's proposal, which is the preferred alternative, would involve granting rights-of-way for the power plant, electric transmission facilities, a water supply system, rail spur, an access road, and additional construction areas. In addition the applicant would undertake the Moriah Ranches Seeding Project. The power plant would feature a hybrid cooling system, employing up to three 550-foot-tall natural draft cooling towers to reject heat from the steam condensers. Cooling water would be taken from the local aquifer via eight wells to be located north of the plant site and delivered to the plant via 12 miles of 10- to 30-inch pipeline. To pump water from the wells through the pipeline, 13 miles of 13.8-kilovolt (kV) overhead distribution lines would be constructed. Power generated by the station would be transmitted to the regional grid via a 2.5-mile loop of 500-kilovolt-kV overhead powerline connecting the station to the Duck Creek Substation and a 32-mile 500-kV overhead power line connecting the Duck Creek Substation to the Thirtymile Substation. The Duck Creek and Thirtymile substations, which would be constructed as a part of the project, would be situated, respectively, on a 60-acre site at the power plant and a 77-acre site near Robinson Summit. Coal would be transported to the site via a 1.3-mile rail spur crossing Duck Creek to connect to the to the Nevada Northern Railway (NNR) line. Vehicular access to the plant would be provided by a one-mile paved access road extending to the site from U.S. 93. A 40-acre earth and rock borrow area would be required to provide fill materials for the project. Mitigation measures would include the implementation of the Moriah Ranches Seeding Project, which would involve the seeding of 700 to 900 acres to improve forage for livestock and wildlife on public lands located 16 miles north of McGill and immediately west of U.S. 93. The proposed action has been selected as the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new plant would help to meet baseload electricity demand in Nevada and elsewhere in the western United States. The facility would supply reliable, low-cost electrically in an environmentally responsible manner, while boosting the economy of White Pine County through the provision of employment and the purchase of goods and services. hence, water rights held by White Pine County would be put to beneficial use. The Moriah Ranches Seeding Project would enhance wildlife range habitat on 700 to 900 acres. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station construction activities would disturb 1,902 acres and the project would result in the permanent disturbance of 1,5100 acres and the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat. The groundwater table in the vicinity of the cooling water system production wells would be drawn down, potentially reducing the flow of 12 area springs. Though unlikely, it would be possible that bald eagle habitat could be affected. Emission during station operations would meet federal air quality standards, but some potential exceedances of federal standards with respect to visibility could occur in the Jarbidge Wilderness Area and Zion National Park. In addition acid deposition and visibility standards could be exceeded in the Great Basin National Park and Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. The smoke stacks and cooling towers, as well as the transmission lines, would be visible from Steptoe Valley, and visual intrusion at location would violate visual resource management objectives. One prehistoric site and a segment of the NNR, both of which are considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1857 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080394, Final EIS (Volume I)--539 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume II--341 pages and maps, Appendices A through Q--417 pages and maps, Appendices R through U--615 pages and maps, April 13, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI-08/24+1793
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Cooling Systems
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Ely Resource Management Area
KW  - Great Basin National Park
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Jarbidge Wilderness Area
KW  - Zion National Park
KW  - Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge
KW  - Clean Air Act of 1970, Prevention of Significant Deterioration
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824497?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-04-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE+PINE+ENERGY+STATION+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WHITE+PINE+ENERGY+STATION+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ely, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 13, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WHITE PINE ENERGY STATION PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 16374474; 13620
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way for the construction and operation of a 1,590-megawatt coal-fired power plant and associated facilities on federal lands, administered by the Bureau of Land Management, in White Pine County, Nevada is proposed. More specifically, the White Pine Energy Station would be located in the Steptoe Valley Hydrographic Basin, approximately 34 miles north of Ely, 22 miles north of McGill, and one mile west of U.S. 93 in eastern Nevada. Three alterative, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The applicant's proposal, which is the preferred alternative, would involve granting rights-of-way for the power plant, electric transmission facilities, a water supply system, rail spur, an access road, and additional construction areas. In addition the applicant would undertake the Moriah Ranches Seeding Project. The power plant would feature a hybrid cooling system, employing up to three 550-foot-tall natural draft cooling towers to reject heat from the steam condensers. Cooling water would be taken from the local aquifer via eight wells to be located north of the plant site and delivered to the plant via 12 miles of 10- to 30-inch pipeline. To pump water from the wells through the pipeline, 13 miles of 13.8-kilovolt (kV) overhead distribution lines would be constructed. Power generated by the station would be transmitted to the regional grid via a 2.5-mile loop of 500-kilovolt-kV overhead powerline connecting the station to the Duck Creek Substation and a 32-mile 500-kV overhead power line connecting the Duck Creek Substation to the Thirtymile Substation. The Duck Creek and Thirtymile substations, which would be constructed as a part of the project, would be situated, respectively, on a 60-acre site at the power plant and a 77-acre site near Robinson Summit. Coal would be transported to the site via a 1.3-mile rail spur crossing Duck Creek to connect to the to the Nevada Northern Railway (NNR) line. Vehicular access to the plant would be provided by a one-mile paved access road extending to the site from U.S. 93. A 40-acre earth and rock borrow area would be required to provide fill materials for the project. Mitigation measures would include the implementation of the Moriah Ranches Seeding Project, which would involve the seeding of 700 to 900 acres to improve forage for livestock and wildlife on public lands located 16 miles north of McGill and immediately west of U.S. 93. The proposed action has been selected as the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new plant would help to meet baseload electricity demand in Nevada and elsewhere in the western United States. The facility would supply reliable, low-cost electrically in an environmentally responsible manner, while boosting the economy of White Pine County through the provision of employment and the purchase of goods and services. hence, water rights held by White Pine County would be put to beneficial use. The Moriah Ranches Seeding Project would enhance wildlife range habitat on 700 to 900 acres. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station construction activities would disturb 1,902 acres and the project would result in the permanent disturbance of 1,5100 acres and the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat. The groundwater table in the vicinity of the cooling water system production wells would be drawn down, potentially reducing the flow of 12 area springs. Though unlikely, it would be possible that bald eagle habitat could be affected. Emission during station operations would meet federal air quality standards, but some potential exceedances of federal standards with respect to visibility could occur in the Jarbidge Wilderness Area and Zion National Park. In addition acid deposition and visibility standards could be exceeded in the Great Basin National Park and Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. The smoke stacks and cooling towers, as well as the transmission lines, would be visible from Steptoe Valley, and visual intrusion at location would violate visual resource management objectives. One prehistoric site and a segment of the NNR, both of which are considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1857 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080394, Final EIS (Volume I)--539 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume II--341 pages and maps, Appendices A through Q--417 pages and maps, Appendices R through U--615 pages and maps, April 13, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI-08/24+1793
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Cooling Systems
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Ely Resource Management Area
KW  - Great Basin National Park
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Jarbidge Wilderness Area
KW  - Zion National Park
KW  - Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge
KW  - Clean Air Act of 1970, Prevention of Significant Deterioration
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374474?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-04-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE+PINE+ENERGY+STATION+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WHITE+PINE+ENERGY+STATION+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ely, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 13, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT AMADOR, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 8]
T2  - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT AMADOR, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36390269; 13370-080136_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the city of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe consists of 652 members, of approximately 350 are voting members. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. The Tribe's proposal would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, potentially one reclaimed water storage tank, a treated wastewater reservoir, a surface water detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce the level of service of the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080136, Draft EIS--727 pages, Appendices (Volume I)--831 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,088 pages, April 8, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 7
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390269?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT+AMADOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT+AMADOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT AMADOR, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 8]
T2  - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT AMADOR, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36389974; 13370-080136_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the city of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe consists of 652 members, of approximately 350 are voting members. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. The Tribe's proposal would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, potentially one reclaimed water storage tank, a treated wastewater reservoir, a surface water detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce the level of service of the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080136, Draft EIS--727 pages, Appendices (Volume I)--831 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,088 pages, April 8, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 5
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389974?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT+AMADOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT+AMADOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT AMADOR, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 8]
T2  - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT AMADOR, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36389884; 13370-080136_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the city of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe consists of 652 members, of approximately 350 are voting members. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. The Tribe's proposal would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, potentially one reclaimed water storage tank, a treated wastewater reservoir, a surface water detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce the level of service of the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080136, Draft EIS--727 pages, Appendices (Volume I)--831 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,088 pages, April 8, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 3
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389884?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT+AMADOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT+AMADOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT AMADOR, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 8]
T2  - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT AMADOR, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36388067; 13370-080136_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the city of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe consists of 652 members, of approximately 350 are voting members. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. The Tribe's proposal would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, potentially one reclaimed water storage tank, a treated wastewater reservoir, a surface water detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce the level of service of the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080136, Draft EIS--727 pages, Appendices (Volume I)--831 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,088 pages, April 8, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 6
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388067?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT+AMADOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT+AMADOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT AMADOR, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 8]
T2  - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT AMADOR, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36387755; 13370-080136_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the city of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe consists of 652 members, of approximately 350 are voting members. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. The Tribe's proposal would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, potentially one reclaimed water storage tank, a treated wastewater reservoir, a surface water detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce the level of service of the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080136, Draft EIS--727 pages, Appendices (Volume I)--831 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,088 pages, April 8, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 8
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36387755?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT+AMADOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT+AMADOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT AMADOR, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 8]
T2  - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT AMADOR, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36382671; 13370-080136_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the city of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe consists of 652 members, of approximately 350 are voting members. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. The Tribe's proposal would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, potentially one reclaimed water storage tank, a treated wastewater reservoir, a surface water detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce the level of service of the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080136, Draft EIS--727 pages, Appendices (Volume I)--831 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,088 pages, April 8, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 2
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382671?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT+AMADOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT+AMADOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT AMADOR, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 8]
T2  - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT AMADOR, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36379067; 13370-080136_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the city of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe consists of 652 members, of approximately 350 are voting members. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. The Tribe's proposal would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, potentially one reclaimed water storage tank, a treated wastewater reservoir, a surface water detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce the level of service of the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080136, Draft EIS--727 pages, Appendices (Volume I)--831 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,088 pages, April 8, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 4
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379067?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT+AMADOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT+AMADOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT AMADOR, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 8]
T2  - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT AMADOR, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36378903; 13370-080136_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the city of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe consists of 652 members, of approximately 350 are voting members. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. The Tribe's proposal would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, potentially one reclaimed water storage tank, a treated wastewater reservoir, a surface water detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce the level of service of the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080136, Draft EIS--727 pages, Appendices (Volume I)--831 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,088 pages, April 8, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378903?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT+AMADOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT+AMADOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT AMADOR, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 16390038; 13370
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the city of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe consists of 652 members, of approximately 350 are voting members. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. The Tribe's proposal would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, potentially one reclaimed water storage tank, a treated wastewater reservoir, a surface water detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce the level of service of the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080136, Draft EIS--727 pages, Appendices (Volume I)--831 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,088 pages, April 8, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16390038?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT+AMADOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT+AMADOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PIPESTONE NATIONAL MONUMENT, PIPESTONE COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 36343547; 12690
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan for the Pipestone National Monument in Pipestone County, Minnesota is proposed. The monument protects quarries of pipestone (catlinite) that have been used by native Americans since prehistoric times. Pipestone is carved into objects, most notably pipes, for use in sacred rituals. The quarries remain sites of sacred importance to Native Americans. The national monument also contains examples of remnant prairie types, some globally threatened, and habitat for two federally listed wildlife species, one endangered and one threatened. The approved general management plan, which would guide the management of the monument for the next 15 to 200 years, would establish a direction for managing cultural and natural resources, the visitor experience, and Native American cultural uses. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to sensitivity to and interpretation of Native American practices and traditions associated with the quarries and related sacred sites, inadequate facilities, external threats to the national monument's integrity from development along or visible from its boundaries, and preservation of the superintendent's house of the former Pipestone Indian School, which lies outside the monument boundaries. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime approved in 1966, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would rehabilitate the visitor center to accommodate more effectively visitor services, exhibits, Native American demonstrators, the cooperating association, and national monument staff. The museum collections would be moved within the visitor center to a location outside the floodplain. The traditional use of the Three Maidens by Native Americans and the activities of the Hiawatha Club would continue. Sun Dances would be permitted, but modifications of use might occur. The bridge below Winnewissa Falls would be moved downstream, removing a restriction to the creek's natural flow. The National Park Service (NPS) would acquire the school district parcel and would seek a cooperative agreement to coordinate management of a wildlife management area administered by the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The NPS would not acquire the Pipestone Indian School superintendent's house, but would seek to assist in its preservation and interpretation. All existing trails would be upgraded and new trails might be added. Efforts to preserve tall grass prairie would encompass 100 acres of land within the wildlife management area and 15.3 acres of land acquired from the school district. Initial capital costs under the preferred alternative are estimated to amount to $3.4 million. The cyclic replacement costs are estimated at $157,061. The recurring annual costs are estimated at $9.1 million, for a total life-cycle cost of $12.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The approved plan would replace the obsolete 1966 management plan, which addressed only facility development, and provide a framework for proactive decisionmaking, including decisions about management cultural and natural resources and about visitor use and development NEGATIVE IMPACTS: To those Native Americans who believe that the national monument is not a traditional Sun Dance site, continuing to allow Sun Dances to take place would be culturally inappropriate and would, therefore, constitute a moderate, adverse, long-term impact in relation to their worldview about revitalizing and reinforcing their traditional identity. Severe flooding, which is infrequent at the site, could endanger visitors, employees, and monument facilities and other property. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070091, 290 pages, March 8, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-14
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Housing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Museums
KW  - Schools
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Pipestone National Monument
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343547?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-03-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIPESTONE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+PIPESTONE+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=PIPESTONE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+PIPESTONE+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 8, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EAGLE PROSPECT EXPLORATORY WELLS PROJECT, BIG PINEY ERANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING.
AN  - 36343943; 12687
AB  - PURPOSE: The approval of an exploratory drilling plan submitted by Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) is proposed to allow the sinking of up to three oil and gas wells to evaluate a portion of the South Rim Unit within the Big Piney Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming. The 23,260-acre project area lies approximately seven miles southeast of Bondurant. The South Rim Unit encompasses 18,427 acres of federal mineral estate in townships 37, 37N. R.113W. Exploratory units, such as the South Rim Unit, which was designated in 2005, are created by administrative decision of the Bureau of Land Management based on common underlying geology and structure, exploration status, and development potential of the lands that are unitized. The project would involve the improvement and reconstruction of existing roads and new road construction to provide access to a drilling site; construction of a single drill pad from which up to three wells would be drilled; installation of a temporary gas gathering line laid on the ground surface if any well is determined to be productive; provision of associated facilities needed for testing and, if possible, initial production operations; maintenance of the wells, if they prove to be productive; and reclamation of the existing low-standard user-created roads that are no longer needed for public access into the area during the first drilling season. Key issues identified during scoping considered in this draft EIS, including those related to three alternatives, one of which is a No Action Alternative(Alternative A), which would not authorize the drilling plan. Under the alternative proposed by the PXP (Alternative B), one to three wells would be sunk from a 4.5-acre well pad, which could be expanded to 6.5 acres, if necessary to provide for storage of produced liquids in tanks located on cut surfaces rather then fill surfaces. One well would be drilled vertically, and two wells would be drilled directionally. Access to the well pad would be through Merna along existing roads on national forest lands, which would be reconstructed and realigned. The 26.4-mile gathering pipeline would be buried at road or drainage crossings and at other locations specified by affected interests or landowners. Unused portions of the pad would be reclaimed. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would be the same as Alternative B, except that the route used for the temporary gathering pipeline would be different, and the line would extend only 11.7 miles. Once again, the pipeline would be buried at appropriate locations as under Alternative B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the plan would allow PXP to take advantage of potential oil and gas resources located in an area designated for that purpose, helping affect the National Forest Service's planning intention for the South Rim Unit, which is part of the multiple-use, sustained yield approach outlined in the general forest management plan. Additions to the nation's oil and gas reserves would reduce dependence on foreign sources of energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The well pad and pipeline would disturb 34.5 acres of soils and displace the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat; this land would be reclaimed following conclusion of well operations. Overall, the project would result in the disturbance of 95 acres for up to five years. The disturbed areas would include 59 acres that would be disturbed over the long-term if the wells proved to be productive. Approximately 23 acres of old-growth forest would be displaced over the short-term, with eight acres remaining disturbed over the long-term. Three acres of riparian and wetland areas would be displaced over the short-term, with one acre remaining displaced. Surface water runoff from road and pipeline rights-of-way and from the well pad would increase sediment delivery to receiving flows within the watershed. Local water wells could be affected by groundwater pumping, but this is unlikely. Road density in the affected area would increase somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070088, 349 pages and maps, March 5, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Exploration
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Roads
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Bridger-Teton National Forest
KW  - Wyoming
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/36343943?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-03-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+PROSPECT+EXPLORATORY+WELLS+PROJECT%2C+BIG+PINEY+ERANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=EAGLE+PROSPECT+EXPLORATORY+WELLS+PROJECT%2C+BIG+PINEY+ERANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pinedale, Wyoming; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 5, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SAGAMORE HILL NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, OYSTER BAY, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36349715; 12677
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Sagamore Hill National Historic Site in Oyster Bay, New York is proposed. Sagamore Hill preserves in public ownership and interprets the structures, landscape, collections, and other cultural resources associated with Theodore Roosevelt's home. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, known as the Building Capacity Alternative, would focus on building the park's capacity to address its basic visitor services and operational needs. A visitor orientation facility would be established within the historic core. The New Barn would be modestly expanded and used to accommodate basic orientation and visitor services, with the exterior rehabilitated to its appearance during the Roosevelt family's residence. The existing visitor contact station would be improved and would continue to house the bookstore and upgraded restrooms. In support of specific interpretive objectives, selected features of Sagamore Hill's cultural landscape and much of its historic architecture would be rehabilitated to reflect the period of the Roosevelt family's residence. The existing visitor contact station would be improved and would continue to house the book store and upgraded restrooms. In support of specific interpretive objectives, selected features of Sagamore Hill's cultural landscape and much of its historic architecture would be rehabilitated to reflect the period. A new collection storage facility would work in combination with the new maintenance facility. The new collection storage facility would also include dedicated research space as well as National Park Service offices. The garage at Old Orchard would be converted from its current uses as a maintenance facility and rehabilitated for use as program space. Under Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, visitors to Sagamore Hill would be offered an experience that would combine the opportunity to explore the site's contemporary relevance in the same context in which one explores its history. Greater emphasis would be placed on rehabilitation of the cultural landscape and historic structures. The expanded and rehabilitated New Barn would function as the core orientation point for visitors. The existing visitor contact station would be removed to make way for the rehabilitation of a portion of the historic farm yard. A newly constructed addition to Old Orchard would provide appropriate climate-controlled storage for the park's collections as well as a large education and program space. The Old Orchard garage would be rehabilitated for use as staff housing. Life cycle costs of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are estimated to range from $22.1 million to $23.1 million, $28.7 million to $29.8 million, and $30.6 million to $31.8 million, respectively. Respective annual staff and operations costs are estimated at $1.5 million, $1.8 million, and $1.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preservation and interpretation of Sagamore Hill would ensure that future generations were able to understand and appreciate the life and legacy of Theodore Roosevelt, his family, and the significant events associated with him at the site. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: NONE. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and Public Law 87-547.
JF  - EPA number: 070078, Draft EIS--248 pages and maps, Environmental Consequences--49 pages, March 1, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - New York
KW  - Sagamore National Historic Site
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 87-547, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349715?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAGAMORE+HILL+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+OYSTER+BAY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SAGAMORE+HILL+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+OYSTER+BAY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Boston, Massachusetts; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 1, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36344036; 12679
AB  - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C&D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stony Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and G) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.)
JF  - EPA number: 070080, Draft EIS--1,427 pages and maps, Appendices (Vol. I)--1,607 pages, Appendices (Vol. II)--724 pages and maps, Appendices (Vol. III)-- 1,977 pages, Appendices (Vol. IV)--1,725 pages, March 1, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344036?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 1, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RECLAMATION MANAGING WATER IN THE WEST: COLORADO RIVER INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR LOWER BASIN SHORTAGES AND COORDINATED OPERATIONS FOR LAKE POWELL AND LAKE MEAD, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH, AND WYOMING. Nevada, New Mexico
AN  - 36349822; 12672
AB  - PURPOSE: The establishment of interim guidelines for lower Colorado River basin water supply shortages and coordinated operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead is proposed to water allocated to Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. The guidelines, which would be in effect through 2026, would pertain, in particular, to drought and low reservoir conditions. From 2000 through 2006, the Colorado River experienced the worst drought conditions in 100 years. Currently, the Department of the Interior (DOI) does not have specific operational guidelines in place to define the circumstances under which the DOI would reduce the annual amount of water available for consumptive use from Lake Mead, nor to address the coordinated operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead during drought and low reservoir conditions. The interim guidelines would be used by the DOI to: 1) determine the circumstances under which the annual amount of water available for consumptive use from Lake Mead to the Colorado River Lower Division states (Arizona, California, and Nevada) below 7.5 million acre-feet pursuant to Article II(B)(3) of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Arizona v. California (2006); 2) define the coordinated operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead to provide improved operation of these two reservoirs, particularly under low reservoir conditions; 3) allow for the storage and delivery of conserved Colorado River system and non-system water in Lake Mead to increase the flexibility of meeting water use needs from Lake Mead, particularly under low reservoir conditions; and 4) determine the conditions under which the DOI may declare the availability of surplus water for use within the Lower Division states. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. A preferred alternative has not yet been identified. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The guidelines would provide a greater degree of certainty to the U.S. water users and managers of the Colorado River basin by providing detailed, objective guidelines for the operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, thereby allowing water users in the lower basin to know when, and by how much, water deliveries would be reduced in drought and other low reservoir conditions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The elevations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead would likely fluctuate between full and lower levels during the analysis period (2008 through 2060), regardless of the alternative chosen. Extreme drought conditions would result in significant changes in lake elevations, depending on the alternative chosen. Any action alternatives would increase the annual minimum objective release period from Glen Canyon Dam by three percent. Between 2027 and 2038, water supply improvements expected under the action alternatives during the preceding period would diminish, converging with supply expectations for the No Action Alternative. Some action alternatives would result in significant temperature and dissolved oxygen level changes in various portions of the basin's flows. Reservoir fluctuation would expose shorelines, initially creating mudflats, which would quickly give way to arid conditions that would increase wind-blown dust significantly. Visual aesthetics and shoreline vegetation and the related wildlife habitat would decline due to downward fluctuations as well, and certain shoreline recreational facilities would be damaged or rendered useless. Boating could become more hazardous due to the creation of navigational hazards by lower reservoir levels. Lake fluctuations would affect special status fish and bird species and could expose archaeological sites to damage and vandalism. All but one action alternative would have negative effects on hydroelectric generation in the basin. The potential for the limitation of water supply would result in negative socioeconomic impacts, such as loss of employment, income, and tax revenue. LEGAL MANDATES: Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 (P.L. 70-642) and Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-537).
JF  - EPA number: 070073, Draft EIS--687 pages, Appendices--728 pages, February 28, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-05
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Safety
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Colorado River
KW  - Lake Mead
KW  - Lake Powell
KW  - Nevada
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Utah
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928, Compliance
KW  - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349822?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-02-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RECLAMATION+MANAGING+WATER+IN+THE+WEST%3A+COLORADO+RIVER+INTERIM+GUIDELINES+FOR+LOWER+BASIN+SHORTAGES+AND+COORDINATED+OPERATIONS+FOR+LAKE+POWELL+AND+LAKE+MEAD%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH%2C+AND+WYOMING.+Nevada%2C+New+Mexico&rft.title=RECLAMATION+MANAGING+WATER+IN+THE+WEST%3A+COLORADO+RIVER+INTERIM+GUIDELINES+FOR+LOWER+BASIN+SHORTAGES+AND+COORDINATED+OPERATIONS+FOR+LAKE+POWELL+AND+LAKE+MEAD%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH%2C+AND+WYOMING.+Nevada%2C+New+Mexico&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 28, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RED RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, MINNESOTA AND NORTH DAKOTA (APPENDICES TO THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2005).
AN  - 36348497; 12830
AB  - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a bulk water supply project to meet the long-term water needs of the Red River Valley in North Dakota and Minnesota are proposed. Most of the population of the Red River Valley, including the residents of Fargo and Grand Forks, North Dakota and Moorhead and East Grand Forks, Minnesota rely on the Red River of the North and its tributaries as primary or sole sources of water. A climate study to investigate the frequency of droughts in the Red River Basin concluded that the valley would probably experience an extreme drought in the next 50 years. It is estimated that at the present water supplies of the valley would fall short of meeting the current annual water demand by approximately 16 percent during a severe drought. Water users in the valley would experience a water supply deficit of 46 percent during the month of February. If population growth trends continue in the valley, the projected water supply shortages would become even greater in the future. The proposed action would include construction of features and facilities needed to develop and deliver sufficient water to existing infrastructure for distribution in municipal, rural, and industrial (MR&I) water users in the service area. A No Action Alternative and seven action alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2005. The alternative preferred by the state of North Dakota, known as the GDU Import to Sheyenne River Alternative, would supplement existing water supplied to meet future water needs with a combination of Red River water, other North Dakota in-basin water sources, and imported Missouri River water. The principal feature of the alternative would consist of a pipeline from the McClusky Canal to Lake Ashtabula that would release treated Missouri River water into the Sheyenne River at a point three miles above the reservoir. The pipe would be sized so peak-day demands could be met by Lake Ashtabula releases into the Sheyenne River. This alternative would include a biota treatment plant at the McClusky Canal and a pipeline to serve industrial water demands in southeastern North Dakota. The biota treatment process would use coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, and ultraviolet disinfection. The import capacity of this alternative, as estimated by in report published in 2005, ranges from 62 to 97 cubic feet per second (cfs). However, earlier analysis estimated it at 78 to 120 cfs; this latter range was used in the impact analysis for this EIS because it provides the scope for a broader range of potential impacts. Annualized overall cost for construction of facilities and operation and maintenance of the state-preferred system is estimated at $32.6 million. {{41}} The federally preferred alternative has not yet been identified. The January 2007 supplement to the draft EIS provided additional information toward the justification of the project and appropriate adjustment of planning alternatives. Specifically, the supplemental EIS focused on water shortages that would occur during a drought similar in severity to the situation that occurred in the 1930s taking into consideration the increased water demand created by projected population and industrial growth. The document at hand provides the appendices to the draft supplement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley as indicated in a number of previous studies, most recently a study published in 2005. Water would be supplied to the 13 eastern counties of North Dakota and the Minnesota communities of Brekenridge, Moorhead, and East Grand Forks. The total maximum annual MR&I water demand in 2050 of 114,000 to 143,000 acre-feet would be satisfied. Moreover, water quality would be improved such that current exceedances of federal quality standards and criteria would be addressed. The plan would also address needs related to maintenance of the aquatic environment, recreational users, and water conservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development and operations could result in impacts to water quality and quantity in the McClusky River as well as groundwater tables depending on the river for replenishment and stability. Associated impacts to aquatic communities, wetlands, grasslands, woodlands, and riparian areas would be expected. Pipeline construction could affect culturally significant structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Dakota Water Resources Act (P.L. 106-554) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 070030, 391 pages, February 28, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-03
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Red River of the North
KW  - Sheyenne River
KW  - Dakota Water Resources Act, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348497?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-02-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+RIVER+VALLEY+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+NORTH+DAKOTA+%28APPENDICES+TO+THE+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2005%29.&rft.title=RED+RIVER+VALLEY+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+NORTH+DAKOTA+%28APPENDICES+TO+THE+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 28, 2007
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 (SUPPLEMENT TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT).
AN  - 36346944; 12671
AB  - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge across the Oregon Inlet in Dare County, North Carolina is proposed in this 2005 supplemental draft EIS on the project. Built in 1962, the existing Bonner Bridge is approaching the end of its reasonable service life. The structure is part of North Carolina (NC) 12 and provides the only highway connection between Hatteras Island and Bodie Island. Two replacement bridge corridors and several design options are considered in this draft 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 the 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 be 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 Adoption 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 elevation 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 and 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 the draft supplemental EIS, see 93-0452D, Volume 17, Number 6.
JF  - EPA number: 070072, 212 pages, February 26, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-93-01-DS
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  - 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/36346944?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-02-26&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+%28SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+SUPPLEMENTAL+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=NC+12+REPLACEMENT+OF+HERBERT+C.+BONNER+BRIDGE%2C+%28BRIDGE+NO.+11%29+OVER+OREGON+INLET%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+SUPPLEMENTAL+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 26, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - APPALACHIAN CORRIDOR H, PARSONS-TO-DAVIS, TUCKER COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1996).
AN  - 36348390; 12668
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of approximately 10.47 miles of highway within Corridor H between Parsons and Davis in Tucker County, West Virginia is proposed in this supplement to the April 1996 final EIS on the construction of 100 miles of highway within the corridor from Elkins, West Virginia to just west of the Virginia state line. As a result of legal challenges a settlement agreement required the West Virginia Department of Transportation in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration to alter the original 1996 construction plan with respect to highway alignment. This final supplemental EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, the originally preferred alternative (OPA), a revised version of the OPA, a variant of the OPA and 11 Blackwater Area avoidance alignments, five of which are evaluated in detail in the draft supplement. The revised OPA, which was developed after the publication of the draft supplement, is the preferred alternative. A truck route option was also considered as an addition to the originally preferred alternative and one of the avoidance alignments. The alignments vary in length from nine miles to 11.2 miles, while the truck route option would extend 1.8 miles. Under any of the primary build alternatives, the project would provide a four-lane, partially controlled access facility. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $101.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The highway would provide a safe, high-speed, high-capacity connection between the project termini; promote economic development in the study area, reduce truck traffic on existing routes; and improve emergency response times and access to emergency facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, totaling 396 acres for the preferred alternative, would displace one residence, 11.13 acres of wetlands, 3.2 acres of floodplain, 124 acres of the Monongahela National Forest, and habitat for the West Virginia northern flying squirrel. The project could eliminate 892 to 1,400 wildlife habitat units and from 553 to 6,016 linear feet of stream. Habitat for the federally protected West Virginia northern flying squirrel would be affected, as would habitat within the Monongahela National Forest. One to six visually sensitive sites would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and the final EISs, see 92-0487D, Volume 16, Number 6 and 94-0510D, Volume 18, Number 6, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0206D, Volume 27, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 070069, 989 pages and maps, CD-ROM, February 22, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-WV-EIS-92-01-SD
KW  - Appalachian Development Highways
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Energy Consumption
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Forests
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Monongahela National Forest
KW  - West Virginia
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348390?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-02-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPALACHIAN+CORRIDOR+H%2C+PARSONS-TO-DAVIS%2C+TUCKER+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1996%29.&rft.title=APPALACHIAN+CORRIDOR+H%2C+PARSONS-TO-DAVIS%2C+TUCKER+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1996%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 22, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - IRONWOOD FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT, SOUTHERN ARIZONA.
AN  - 36346802; 12667
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan for the Ironwood Forest National Monument (IFNM) of southern Arizona is proposed. The IFNM encompasses 128,400 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 54,700 acres of state trust land, and 6,000 acres of privately owned land. The monument, which lies in the heart of the Sonoran Desert, is a unique scenic area of rolling desert and ironwood woodlands, including the Silverbell, Waterman, Sawtooth, and Roskruge mountains. Much of the vegetation in the area is classified as Sonoran Desert upland habitat dominated by cacti. Other common plants include ironwood, paloverde, creosote, brittle bush, triangle-leaf bursage, octillo, and white thorn acacia. The upper slopes of the Silverbell Mountains possess a chaparral community dominated by jojoba. The lower bajadas contain inter-braided streams that carry water after heavy rains. In addition to the natural environment, abundant cultural resources occur within the IFNM, including a site listed in the National Register of Historic Places, two archaeological districts listed in the register, historic mining camps, and other cultural resources that are eligible for listing in the register. Currently, the IFNM is managed under the 1989 Phoenix Resource Area resource management plan as amended by the Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration and the Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Management, and the 1987 Eastern Arizona Grazing EIS. Key issues addressed during scoping for this EIS include those related to vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, visual resources, wilderness characteristics, energy and mineral resources, grazing and livestock management, recreation, lands and realty, and travel management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would incorporate elements from each of the other alternatives to strike a balance between long-term conservation and uses that have traditionally taken place on the monument lands, such as grazing and recreational visitation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general resource management plan would address the management of lands within the monument consistent with the monument designation to protect objects of scientific interest. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and recreational uses of the monument's resources would have negative impacts on air quality, geology, soil and water resources, vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, special status species habitats, fir ecology and management, cultural resources and paleontological resources, scenic and visual resources, wilderness values, livestock grazing, recreational values, land ownership, travel management, areas designated for special protection, the socioeconomic condition of local communities, and public safety. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7320 .
JF  - EPA number: 070068, 472 pages and maps, February 22, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-06/010
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Ironwood Forest National Monument
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7320, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346802?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-02-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.title=IRONWOOD+FOREST+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 22, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE ARIZONA STRIP FIELD OFFICE AND VERMILLION CLIFFS NATIONAL MONUMENT AND THE BLM PORTION OF GRAND CANYON-PARASHANT NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE NPS PORTION OF THE GRAND CANYON-PARASHANT NATIONAL MONUMENT, ARIZONA.
AN  - 36348204; 12665
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan for the Arizona Strip of Coconino and Mohave counties is proposed. The 3.3-million-acre Arizona Strip includes the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument and the portions of the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service. The two monuments were created to protect an array of scientific, biological, geological, hydrological, cultural, and historical objects. The planning area is one of the largest unfragmented, undeveloped stretches of sparsely developed lands in the contiguous United States. Key issues during scoping include those related to transportation and access, wilderness management, protection of monuments and Arizona Strip resources, livestock grazing operations, and public recreational uses. The chief management concerns are identified as restoration of degraded ecosystems and consideration of human factors in the planning area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in the final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize minimal human use/influence and potentially provide the fewest miles of open road and trail and the least resource development. Alternative C would represent an attempt to balance resource protection and human use/influence. Alternative D would emphasize maximum appropriate human use/influence and the widest array of recreational opportunities, potentially including the most miles of open road and trail. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would emphasize minimal human influence/use in the southern and more remote sections of the planning area and greater human use in the northern areas and locations adjacent to communities in an attempt to balance human use/influence with resource protection. Four geographic management units, each having particular management goals, would be designated. The Community Management Unit would provide room for community growth and development. The Corridors Management Unit would contain lands along major travel routes, providing, inter alia, access to the Back Roads and Outback management units. The Back Roads Management Unit would provide a variety of dispersed recreation opportunities, such as viewing scenery, riding motorcycles and off-highway vehicles, vehicle touring, flying aircraft, hiking and walking, bicycling, horseback riding, camping, picnicking, and hunting. The Outback Management Unit would provide opportunities for undeveloped, primitive, and self-directed recreation opportunities, such as viewing scenery, hiking and walking, horseback riding, backpacking, hunting, canyoneering, and rock climbing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: While maintaining the pristine character of the study area, the preferred management plan would allow for a diversity of recreational opportunities as well as associated concessionary and ancillary outside-the-park commercial activities focusing on the adventure tourism industry. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities development, which would be minimal, and the expected increases in visitation due to improved access and a greater public awareness of monument resources would result in damage to vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and disturbance of soils in some areas, particularly those accessible by motor vehicles. Vandalism could increase, particularly affecting paleontologic and cultural resources. Management activities and requirements could conflict with livestock operations. Aircraft noise would mar the recreational value of some areas for some visitors to the Outback Management Unit. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and Presidential Proclamation 7374. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0097D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 070066, Volume 1--587 pages, Volume 2--621 pages, Volume 3--401 pages, February 21, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument
KW  - Vermillion Cliffs National Monument
KW  - Antiquities Act of 1906, Program Authorization
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 7374, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348204?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-02-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+ARIZONA+STRIP+FIELD+OFFICE+AND+VERMILLION+CLIFFS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+THE+BLM+PORTION+OF+GRAND+CANYON-PARASHANT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+A+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+NPS+PORTION+OF+THE+GRAND+CANYON-PARASHANT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+ARIZONA+STRIP+FIELD+OFFICE+AND+VERMILLION+CLIFFS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+THE+BLM+PORTION+OF+GRAND+CANYON-PARASHANT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+A+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+NPS+PORTION+OF+THE+GRAND+CANYON-PARASHANT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%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, St. George, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 21, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EL CENTRO FIELD OFFICE, EASTERN SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36342949; 12664
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised resource management plan for administering approximately 103,303 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land in eastern San Diego County, California is proposed. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the management of recreation and public access, designation and management of special areas, management of visual resources, and protection of cultural resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the Mixed Alternative, would provide for visitation and development within the planning area, while ensuring that resource protection was not compromised. Alternative C, the Conservation Alternative, would generally emphasize the preservation of the planning area's natural and cultural resources through limitation of public use and discontinuation of livestock grazing. Alternative D, the Development Alternative, would provide more opportunities for development of resources, such as renewable energy, transportation, and utility rights-of-way, as well as enhanced recreational opportunities. Alternative E, the preferred alternative, would provide for a full multiple-use, sustained yield regime. Specific stipulations and measures under the various alternatives would address vegetation resource management, wildlife habitat management, special status species management, visual resource protection, wilderness designations, designation of areas of critical environmental concern, livestock grazing, mineral resource exploration and leasing, recreation resource land allocations and management, off-highway vehicle use areas, the travel and transportation system (including designation of road and trail corridors), and lands and realty management (including acquisition and disposition of lands). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbances due to management activities, economic resource exploitation, and recreational visitation would disturb soils and destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and result in increased sediment levels in receiving surface waters, thus degrading aquatic habitat. Visual quality in areas under development activities, particularly the exploitation of minerals and the construction and operation of roads, would be degraded significantly. Livestock grazing would be prohibited in all BLM-administered lands, removing ranges from use by potential allotment operators. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070065, 811 pages and maps, February 20, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2007-003+1793
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - El Centro Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342949?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EL+CENTRO+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+EASTERN+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EL+CENTRO+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+EASTERN+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 20, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MOUNTAIN VIEW IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT, PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36343217; 12660
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way from Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to Mountain View Power Partners, LLC for the construction and operation of the Mountain View IV Wind Energy Project on federal and Palms Springs jurisdictional lands within the western end of Coachella Valley, in Palm Springs, California. The wind energy facilities would lie west of North Indian Canyon Drive and south of Interstate 10. More specifically, the subject properties are located within sections 27 and 28 of Township 3 South, Range 4 East. The project site consists of vacant desert lands and a large berm in Section 27, and the remnants of a non-operational wind generation facility and associated gravel roads in Section 28. Section 27 is public land administered by the BLM; the whole of Section 28 is owned by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). Both parcels would be developed as a comprehensively planned project. From 21 to 24 wind turbines, rated at 850 to 1,500 kilowatts, would be developed on the BLM rights-of-way. These turbines would provide 20.4 to 21 megawatts (MW) of rated capacity. The CVWD portion of the project, which would be subject to a conditional use permit through the city of Palm Springs, would include 28 to 34 turbines in Section 27, providing for up to 28 MW of rated capacity. The project would include existing 16-foot-wide gravel roads extending a total of 17,200 linear feet and new 16-foot-wide gravel roads extending a total of 16,065 feet. Each graveled turbine site would be 63 feet by 47 feet, with gravel depths of four to six feet. The project plan would include a 5,450-foot extension of an existing overhead power line within BLM land in Section 22 and the construction of a 34.5-kilovolt to 115-kilovolt electrical substation on BLM land just north of the Union Pacific Railroad line in Section 22. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Reduced Development Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The wind turbine facility would allow the applicant to take advantage of a 20- to 25-year power purchase contract with a major electric utility to supply 100 percent wind-generated electrical energy, helping to meet the increased demand for renewable energy in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soil and vegetation displacement would affect wildlife and plant habitat, including habitat for the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, Coachella Valley milkvetch, flat-tail horned lizard, borrowing owl, silver cholla, and desert willow hummocks. The wind farm would lie within an area affected by strong seismic activity. Construction of the facilities would result in significant runoff in a desert area where runoff is rare; significant degradation of water quality in surface flows would occur. The facilities would lie within the 100-year floodplain of the Whitewater River. A maximum of 2,000 cubic yards of cut and 2,400 cubic yards of fill would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1992 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070061, 179 pages and maps, February 16, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-11
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Turbines
KW  - California
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343217?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-02-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+IV+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+IV+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palms Springs, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 16, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUN VALLEY RESORT (BALD MOUNTAIN) 2005 MASTER PLAN, PHASE I PROJECTS, TWIN FALLS DISTRICT (BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT) AND SAW TOOTH NATIONAL FOREST, BLAINE COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36345027; 12654
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of Phase I of the master plan submitted to the National Forest Service (NFS) for the on Bald Mountain ski area in the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Twin Falls District and the Sawtooth National Forest, Blaine County, Idaho is proposed. The 3,325-acre ski area, which is owned and managed by Sun Valley Resort, is operated under a dual special use permit issued by the BLM and the NFS. Key issues identified during scoping are related to recreational capacity and distribution, visual resources, socioeconomic resources, cultural resources, Native American interests and concerns, traffic, ski area access, parking, acoustics, effects on inventoried roadless area, watershed values, wildlife and fish habitat, and air quality. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would implement the Phase I facilities plan, including installation of a gondola life between the River Run Plaza and the Roundhouse Restaurant; removal of the Exhibition lift; construction of new trails at Guyer Ridge and Seattle Ridge; realignment and grading of Olympic Lane trail and grade Lower Olympic trail; creation of new terrain on the Lower Greyhawk trails; operation of previously installed snowmaking infrastructure in the Frenchman's pod; installation of snowmaking infrastructure on Olympic Lane, Olympic Ridge, Lower Olympic, Broadway Face, Lower Broadway, Guyer Ridge, Upper Cozy, Upper Hemingway, Christmas Bowl, Brick's Island, Can-Can, French Dip, and the proposed Seattle Ridge trail; renovation of the Roundhouse Restaurant and expansion of its operating season, and adjustment of the current special use permit boundary to include the existing Broadway Face and proposed Guyer Ridge trails. A vegetation management plan, specifying necessary treatments to insure long-term health of vegetation in the area, would be implemented. Resort plan implementation would require amendment of the general forest management plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Phase I improvements would improve circulation between the River Run base area and the Roundhouse Restaurant for both skiers and non-skiers, provide expanded and improved opportunities for on-mountain guest services, provide a consistent, predictable recreational experience across Bald Mountain and help disperse skiers, add trail capacity and alternative features to better distribute skiers across the trail network in response to evolving guest expectations, and make appropriate boundary adjustments to address resort trails and roads outside the special use permit areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance and the associated loss of vegetation would incrementally impact the visual quality of the area and result in the degradation and loss of wildlife habitat and the sedimentation of surface flows, the latter impact resulting in the degradation of aquatic habitat. Post-disturbance sediment yields could increase as much as nine percent. Noise levels affecting residents of the nearby community of Broad Ranch would increase as much as 10 to 15 decibels on the A-weighted scale, largely due to snowmaking machines. Approximately 53.7 acres of the resort's permit area would overlap with the Buttercup Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area. The total volume of snowmaking water removed from local surface flows would increase somewhat. Approximately 39 acres of forest would be cleared and 65 acres of Canada lynx, a federally protected species, would be affected, and the habitat of numerous sensitive avian, terrestrial, amphibian, and vegetative species would be disturbed or displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070053, 277 pages and maps, February 12, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Noise
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Ski Areas
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Sawtooth National Forest
KW  - Twin Falls District
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/36345027?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-02-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUN+VALLEY+RESORT+%28BALD+MOUNTAIN%29+2005+MASTER+PLAN%2C+PHASE+I+PROJECTS%2C+TWIN+FALLS+DISTRICT+%28BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT%29+AND+SAW+TOOTH+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BLAINE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=SUN+VALLEY+RESORT+%28BALD+MOUNTAIN%29+2005+MASTER+PLAN%2C+PHASE+I+PROJECTS%2C+TWIN+FALLS+DISTRICT+%28BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT%29+AND+SAW+TOOTH+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BLAINE+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Twin Falls, Idaho; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 12, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - VALLEY FORGE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA.
AN  - 36342968; 12653
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan for the Valley Forge National Historical Park at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania is proposed. Valley Forge is the 1777/78 winter encampment of General George Washington's Continental Army, constituting one of the most famous sites of the American Revolution. The significance of the encampment lies not only in its fact-based history but also in its storied myth. Conditions in and around Valley Forge have changed markedly since 1976, which it was transferred from the commonwealth of Pennsylvania to the National Park System. The immediate surroundings have been fully developed, growing into the most traffic-choked area in the state, resulting in daily conflicts in and around the park. Years of flat park budgets have reduced staff numbers and resources available to care for the historic structures within the park. Visitation opportunities have dwindled. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The current management plan was established in 1982 and includes initiatives already underway, such as the rehabilitation of the Valley Forge Train Station and the construction of a River Crossing Complex by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Alternative would preserve the historic landscape as is. Layers from all historically significant period would be sustained and actively interpreted through the use of technology and multimedia. The health of the forests and meadows would be enhanced through active environmental restoration measures. Community partnerships would be strengthened and new partnerships would be pursued. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would implement a self-discovery approach, illustrating the various areas of the park and related historic themes and topics. The landscape of the core areas would evoke the 18th Century. Some historic views would be rehabilitated to facilitate interpretation. Most areas of the park would be preserved as is. Forest and meadowland would undergo the same sort of restoration measures as those proposed under Alternative B, and a similar approach would be taken to encourage community partnerships. Some roads through the park would be closed. Visitors would be encouraged to use a shuttle service or walk. Capital investments for alternative A, B, and C are estimated at $54.5 million, $31.2 million to $43.3 million, and $61.3 million to $85.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Alternative B or C would enhance the management and preservation of the park's cultural and natural resources, while providing new opportunities for visitors. Alternative B would provide an exciting palette of new options for visitors to tailor visits and experiences to best meet their own needs and interests. Experiences would focus on the exploration of self discovery of the full cultural and natural history of Valley Forge. Excellent orientation, as well as the use of new technologies, would be the key to this approach. Alternative C would provide visitors the opportunity to decide the kind of experience they wish to have, depending on learning style, interest, and time. The park would provide a core message and experience for all visitors that would primarily be immersive and focused on the encampment and the American Revolution. A self-discovery approach would illustrate additional areas of the park as well as historic and natural resource themes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The closure of some public roads, though enhancing park experience, would result in additional congestion within other transportation corridors in the region. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and Public Law 94-337.
JF  - EPA number: 070052, 412 pages and maps, February 12, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-08
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Roads
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Pennsylvania
KW  - Valley Forge National Historical Park
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 94-337, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342968?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-02-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VALLEY+FORGE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+KING+OF+PRUSSIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=VALLEY+FORGE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+KING+OF+PRUSSIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 12, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EAST TEXAS TO MISSISSIPPI EXPANSION PROJECT, EASTERN TEXAS, NORTHERN LOUISIANA, AND WESTERN MISSISSIPPI (DOCKET NOS. CP06-446-000, PF06-17-000, PF06-23-000).
AN  - 36342586; 12650
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in various counties and parishes in eastern Texas, northern Louisiana, and western Mississippi is proposed. The applicant, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, wishes to transport natural gas from production fields in eastern Texas to markets in the Gulf Coast, Midwestern, Northeastern, and Southeastern United States. The system contemplated by the applicant, would include 240 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline extending eastward from DeSoto Parish in Louisiana to Simpson County in Mississippi; 3.3 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline extending from Gulf South's existing Carthage Junction compressor station in Panola County, Texas to interconnects with existing natural gas facilities within Panola County; new compressor stations, one each in Ouachita and Madison parishes, Louisiana; modifications to existing compressor stations at Carthage Junction in Panola County, Hall Summit in Bienville Parish, Louisiana, and McComb in Walthall County, Mississippi; and ancillary facilities including six meter and regulator facilities, 11 mainline valves, nine side valves, and six pig launcher and/or receiver facilities. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, an alternative that would postpone the proposed action, alternative energy sources, system alternatives, energy conservation technologies and practices, a major pipeline route alternative and minor route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would be capable of 1.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day to the applicant's target markets, improving the reliability of natural gas delivery in those markets and helping to reduce the dependency of the United States on foreign sources of energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would cross 848 surface waterbodies and 301 wetlands, disturbing approximately 114.9 acres of wetlands. Conventional open-cut construction would be used to cross all but 64 of these waterbodies, which would be crossed using horizontal directional drilling. Special-status and high-quality wetlands , including wetlands in the National Resource Conservation Service-administered Wetland Reserve Program and Prior Converted Wetlands program, as well as several high-quality forested wetlands, would be affected by construction and operation of the system. Numerous acres of forested wetlands would be cleared and converted to emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands and maintained in those states within the permanent rights-of-way during operation. The pipelines would pass in the vicinity of several recreational and special interest areas, including the Ouachita Wildlife Management Area, the Pearl and Black rivers, Black Lake Bayou and Saline Bayou, the Natchez Trace Parkway, and the Tensas National Wildlife Refuge. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974(22 U.S.C 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070050, 598 pages, February 9, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0206D
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Louisiana
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342586?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-02-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+TEXAS+TO+MISSISSIPPI+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+EASTERN+TEXAS%2C+NORTHERN+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+WESTERN+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP06-446-000%2C+PF06-17-000%2C+PF06-23-000%29.&rft.title=EAST+TEXAS+TO+MISSISSIPPI+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+EASTERN+TEXAS%2C+NORTHERN+LOUISIANA%2C+AND+WESTERN+MISSISSIPPI+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP06-446-000%2C+PF06-17-000%2C+PF06-23-000%29.&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 - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 9, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 36351556; 12646
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of a general resource management plan for the Little Snake Resource Management Area , Moffatt, Routt, and Rio Blanco counties is proposed. The 4.2-million-acre planning area, which contains 1.3 million acres of surface federal ownership and 1.1 million acres of federal mineral estate overlain by private and state lands, lies in northwestern Colorado. The existing resource management plan, established in April 1989 and amended three times since, is now outdated due to changes in the situations of the resources in the area and in patterns of usage over nearly the 20 years since approval of the plan. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to energy and minerals, special management areas, transportation and travel management, wildlife, socioeconomic values, and land tenure and realty. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would use adaptive management criteria to prioritize implementation planning in areas with the greatest need. Area protections, such as designation of areas as areas of critical environmental concern and Wilderness Study Areas, would be limited to those areas where such designations would be limited to areas where such designations were necessary to protect sensitive resources, and specific management prescriptions would be applied to areas that do not receive such designations. Existing special recreational management areas (SRMAs) would remain in place and additional SRMAs and backcountry areas would be identified to provide for a diverse recreational experience. The acreage closed to off-highway vehicle (OHV) and in which OHV use would be restricted would increase, but the plan would allot some areas for open OHV use. Areas designated for no surface occupancy with respect to oil and gas lease developments would be designated as no ground-level development for other uses. Specific land allocations and usage allowances and restrictions under Alternative C would address adaptive management, air quality, soils management, water resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat and special status species, wild horses, fire management cultural and heritage resources, paleontologic sites, visual resources, oil and gas resource development, coal and oil shale development, other locatable minerals, mineral material sales, livestock grazing, recreation resources, forestry, lands and wealth, and transportation and access and travel management. Coordination with four organizations representing Native American tribes living in the area would be undertaken. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would implement a multiple-use, sustained yield scenario within the planning area, ensuring maximum resource exploitation value, while protecting sensitive resources and applying the most current information to allow the establishment of priorities for flexible, proactive management of public lands. Protection of greater sage grouse and other wildlife habitat would be maintained or increased. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral and timber production, oil and natural gas leasing activities, livestock grazing, recreational facilities development and recreational uses would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in the disturbance and loss of wildlife habitat and the erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and/or paleontological resource sites. OHV uses would continue to come into conflict with users wishing a more naturalistic, pristine experience within the planning area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070046, Volume 1--737 pages, Volume 2--357 pages, CD-ROM, February 8, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/CO/PL-07-002
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coal
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Shale
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Little Snake Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351556?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%2C+AND+RIO+BLANCO+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%2C+AND+RIO+BLANCO+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Craig, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 8, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUCKHAVEN GEOTHERMAL LEASING AREA, EL CENTRO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36342140; 12642
AB  - PURPOSE: The leasing under noncompetitive and/or competitive terms of geothermal resources within the 14,731-acre Truckhaven Geothermal Leasing Area in the El Centro Resource Management Area of Imperial County, California is proposed. The leasing area lies adjacent to the Salton Sea in western Imperial County, within the boundaries of the California Desert Conservation Area. A geothermal lease grants the lessee access to geothermal resources in the lease area for a period of 10 years. Once an area is developed for productive use of geothermal energy, the lease allows the lessee use of the resource for 40 years, with an option for renewal of an additional 40 years. Until the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, lands outside of known geothermal resource areas (KGRAs) could be leased noncompetitively; the lands within the Truckhaven Geothermal Leasing area are not within a KGRA at this time and were open to noncompetitive leasing until the passage of the Energy Policy Act. Five applications, filed in 2000 and 2001, are pending for noncompetitive leases of geothermal resources on 7,051 acres of federal lands within the action area. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to air quality, archaeological and other cultural resources, fish and wildlife habitat, human health and safety, with particular respect to hazardous materials usage, recreation resources, special status species, visual resources, topography, and geology and geological hazards. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would not approve the existing noncompetitive lease applications or offer any other lands for leasing, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would offer 11 sections of land with pending noncompetitive geothermal lease applications; no other lease tracts for which noncompetitive lease applications have been filed would be opened for geothermal leasing. Alternative 3, which is the currently proposed action and preferred alternative, would involve approval of leases for tracts with pending noncompetitive leasing applications filed between 2000 and 2001 and offer competitive leases for all other public lands within the Truckhaven area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would allow for the resolution of existing legitimate noncompetitive lease application filed several years in the past. Moreover, it would respond to an directive from the President of the United states and other legal mandates ordering the expedited leasing of known geothermal resources. The leases would also meet a state mandate to provide 20 percent of California's energy via renewable resources by 2010, up from 10.4 percent in 2004. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground shaking and volcanic activity in this geologically active region could damage facilities, and production activities could induce microseismic activity. Removal of large quantities of geothermal fluid could result in subsidence. Unique geologic formations in the vicinity could be physically impacted by lease development activities. Blasting could affect private wells. There would be a low probability that geothermal fluid could mix with shallow groundwater. Transmission line construction would displace wildlife habitat within rights-of-way. Wildlife potentially affected by the project would include terrestrial and avian species, including Large quantities of criteria air pollutants, particularly oxides of nitrogen, would be releases from drilling rig engines, and up to greenhouse gases would be released. Lease development activities could inadvertently impact recorded cultural resources and exposes unrecorded sites. Construction and operational noise could be heard by hikers and other recreationists. Lease development would engender a small potential of uncontrolled release of geothermal fluids into the environment, and some possibility exists for accidental release of hazardous materials. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a).
JF  - EPA number: 070042, 217 pages, February 7, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Geothermal Resources
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Subsidence
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Volcanoes
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - California Desert Conservation Area
KW  - El Centro Resource Management Area
KW  - Truckhaven Geothermal Leasing Area
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342140?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-02-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUCKHAVEN+GEOTHERMAL+LEASING+AREA%2C+EL+CENTRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TRUCKHAVEN+GEOTHERMAL+LEASING+AREA%2C+EL+CENTRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 7, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PINEDALE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SUBLETTE AND LINCOLN COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 36348140; 12638
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 an 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 draft 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 paleontologic 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 070038, Volume 1--745 pages, Volume 2--366 pages, February 5, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM\WY\PL-07/005+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/36348140?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-02-05&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 - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRINITY PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRICT DIRECT INTERCONNECTION PROJECT, TRINITY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36342112; 12639
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 16 miles of new 60-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and associated facilities and the implementation of other power transmissions adjustments in Trinity County, California are proposed. The transmission line would traverse a portion of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest as well as other public lands. The new transmission line would be used by the Trinity Public Utilities District, a small utility district in northern California serving approximately 16,000 consumers in a 2,200-square-mile service area. Consumers in the Trinity service area routinely experience nearly 20,000 consumer hours in outages per year. In the winter, many of the outages last three to four days. Utilities repair teams have had a difficult time restoring service due to the remote location and rough terrain of the service area. Overall, the project would involve the removal of 5.3 miles of 12-kV distribution line extending from the Trinity Power Plant at Trinity Day to a tap point 0.75 mile west of Lewiston Dam and the construction and operation of the abovementioned 60-kV line to replace the 12-kV line utilizing, in part, the same alignment and rights-of-way (expanded) as the 12-kV line as well as a tap structure and associated equipment, and a new switchyard. The full 60-kV line would extend from the Trinity Power Plant to the new switchyard at Weaverville. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers and dismisses a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, and transmission line routing alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new 60-kV transmission line would improve system reliability by providing a shorter, direct interconnection with the broader transmission system centered at Trinity Power Plant. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would permanently displace 3.62 acres of vegetation and temporarily impact 6.34 acres of vegetation, as well as the associated wildlife habitat; disturbed and displaced vegetation would include conifer hardwood forest. Avian collisions with the transmission line would increase bird mortality in the area, particularly with respect to raptors. Riparian reserves, streams, and wetlands within national forest land and elsewhere would be traversed. The corridor would affect 16 historic sites and two electrical power lines, one residential complex, and two isolated features of cultural significance. The corridor would be subject to low-level seismic activity. Transmission facilities would mar aesthetics and other dispersed recreational values in the national forest. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Trinity River Division Act of 1955.
JF  - EPA number: 070039, 211 pages and maps, February 5, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Shasta-Trinity National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Trinity River Division Act of 1955, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342112?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-02-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRINITY+PUBLIC+UTILITIES+DISTRICT+DIRECT+INTERCONNECTION+PROJECT%2C+TRINITY+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TRINITY+PUBLIC+UTILITIES+DISTRICT+DIRECT+INTERCONNECTION+PROJECT%2C+TRINITY+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 5, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - US HIGHWAY 89, BROWNING TO HUDSON BAY DIVIDE, GLACIER COUNTY, MONTANA.
AN  - 36342510; 12637
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 25.5-mile segment of US 89 from its junction with US 2 to the Hudson Bay Divide south of Saint Mary in Glacier County, Montana is proposed. The US Browning to Hudson Bay Divide project initially considered improvement of a network of roadways that perform some of the transportation functions that might otherwise be performed by US 89 if it met current roadway standards. State and federal authorities concluded that the most pressing need for roadway improvements within this roadway network exists in the transportation corridor between the Saint Mary-Babb area, including points north of Babb and west of Saint Mary, and the Browning area, including points south and east of Browning. US 89 and Duck Lake Road function as the primary transportation links between these two areas. Hence, the project has focused on potential improvements to US 89 between Hudson Bay Divide and Browning as well as improvements to Duck Lake Road between US 89 south of Babb and Browning. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A) and two widening alternatives, are considered in the final EIS. Alternative B would provide for a 32-foot cross-section, while alternative C would provide for a cross-section of 36 feet. The EIS also analyses a Duck Lake Road Option, which would consist of improvements in three areas along Duck Lake Road as an alternate truck route for US 89; this option could be implemented under any alternative. Alternative C, with the Duck Lake Road Option, has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a facility that meets current design standards, enhancing safety and highway operations within the corridor. The highway would particularly enhance the cultural resources and economic opportunities of the Blackfeet Nation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 146 acres of wildlife habitat and increase fragmentation of forested habitat in the area and require the relocation of one residence and the acquisition of two areas of unimproved lands encompassing 472 acres. Extensive earthwork would be required along the corridor. The project would displace 19.8 acres of wetlands. Approximately 1,300 linear feet of South Fork Cut Bank Creek would be relocated. Bald eagle, grizzly bear, and bull trout, all of which are federally protected species, could be affected somewhat. Two historic bridges and the Blackfeet Highway, also an historically significant resource, would be affected, and several archaeologically significant cloth-offering sites would be disturbed. Highway structures would diminish the visual quality of the rural area. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0224D, Volume 29, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 070037, 644 pages, February 2, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Montana
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342510?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-02-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+HIGHWAY+89%2C+BROWNING+TO+HUDSON+BAY+DIVIDE%2C+GLACIER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+HIGHWAY+89%2C+BROWNING+TO+HUDSON+BAY+DIVIDE%2C+GLACIER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Helena, Montana; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 2, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RED RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, MINNESOTA AND NORTH DAKOTA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2005).
AN  - 36408233; 12630
AB  - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a bulk water supply project to meet the long-term water needs of the Red River Valley in North Dakota and Minnesota are proposed. Most of the population of the Red River Valley, including the residents of Fargo and Grand Forks, North Dakota and Moorhead and East Grand Forks, Minnesota rely on the Red River of the North and its tributaries as primary or sole sources of water. A climate study to investigate the frequency of droughts in the Red River Basin concluded that the valley would probably experience an extreme drought in the next 50 years. It is estimated at the present -water supplies of the valley would fall short of meeting the current annual water demand by approximately 16 percent during a severe drought. Water users in the valley would experience a water supply deficit of 46 percent during the month of February. If population growth trends continue in the valley, the projected water supply shortages would become even greater in the future. The proposed action would include construction of features and facilities needed to develop and deliver sufficient water to existing infrastructure for distribution in municipal, rural, and industrial (MR&I) water users in the service area. A No Action Alternative and seven action alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of December 2005. The alternative preferred by the state of North Dakota, known as the GDU Import to Sheyenne River Alternative, would supplement existing water supplied to meet future water needs with a combination of Red River water, other North Dakota in-basin water sources, and imported Missouri River water. The principal feature of the alternative would consist of a pipeline from the McClusky Canal to Lake Ashtabula that would release treated Missouri River water into the Sheyenne River at a point three miles above the reservoir. The pipe would be sized so peak-day demands could be met by Lake Ashtabula releases into the Sheyenne River. This alternative would include a biota treatment plant at the McClusky Canal and a pipeline to serve industrial water demands in southeastern North Dakota. The biota treatment process would use coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, and ultraviolet disinfection. The import capacity of this alternative, as estimated by in report published in 2005, ranges from 62 to 97 cubic feet per second (cfs). However, earlier analysis estimated it at 78 to 120 cfs; this latter range was used in the impact analysis for this EIS because it provides the scope for a broader range of potential impacts. Annualized overall cost for construction of facilities and operation and maintenance of the state-preferred system is estimated at $32.6 million. {{41}} The federally preferred alternative has not yet been identified. This supplement to the draft EIS provides additional information toward the justification of the project and appropriate adjustment of planning alternatives. Specifically, the supplemental EIS focuses on water shortages that would occur during a drought similar in severity to the situation that occurred in the 1930s taking into consideration the increased water demand created by projected population and industrial growth. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley as indicated in a number of previous studies, most recently a study published in 2005. Water would be supplied to the 13 eastern counties of North Dakota and the Minnesota communities of Brekenridge, Moorhead, and East Grand Forks. The total maximum annual MR&I water demand in 2050 of 114,000 to 143,000 acre-feet would be satisfied. Moreover, water quality would be improved such that current exceedances of federal quality standards and criteria would be addressed. The plan would also address needs related to maintenance of the aquatic environment, recreational users, and water conservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development and operations could result in impacts to water quality and quantity in the McClusky River as well as groundwater tables depending on the river for replenishment and stability. Associated impacts to aquatic communities, wetlands, grasslands, woodlands, and riparian areas would be expected. Pipeline construction could affect culturally significant structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Dakota Water Resources Act (P.L. 106-554) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, 06-0187D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 070030, 391 pages, January 31, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-03
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Red River of the North
KW  - Sheyenne River
KW  - Dakota Water Resources Act, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36408233?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-01-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+RIVER+VALLEY+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+NORTH+DAKOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2005%29.&rft.title=RED+RIVER+VALLEY+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+NORTH+DAKOTA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 31, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING.
AN  - 36342616; 12634
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a elk and bison management plan for he National Elk Refuge and in Grand Teton National Park/John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway is proposed. The Jackson elk and bison herds comprise one of the largest concentrations of these two species in North America, with an estimated 13,500 elk and over 800 bison. The elk migrate across several jurisdictional boundaries in northwestern Wyoming, including the National Elk Refuge and the Grand Teton National Park. Both species contribute significantly to the ecology of the southern greater Yellowstone ecosystem due to their large numbers, wide distribution, effects on vegetation, and their importance to the area's predators and scavengers. The proposed plan would manage these two populations in the refuge and park over the next 15 years. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would maintain the maximum of 7,500 elk on the refuge, with an average of 5,600 animals, and roughly 2,500 elk would inhabit the park in the summer. Bison numbers would increase well beyond the 1,000 animals, and winter feeding would be conducted nearly every winter. Alternative 2 would result in elk numbers on the refuge fluctuating between 1,200 and 6,000 and between 600 and 3,000 in the park . Bison would number between 250 and 500, and winter feeding would be phased out within 10 to 15 years, Alternative 3 would reduce elk numbers to 1,000 to 2,000 on the refuge and 500 to 1,000 within the park. Bison numbers would be maintained at 800 to 1,000, and winter feeding on the refuge would be limited to severe winter feeding. Alternative 4 (the preferred alternative) would reduce elk numbers to 4,000 to 5,000 on the refuge and 1,300 to 1,600 in the park. Bison numbers would be reduced to approximately 500, and winter feeding would be limited to above average winters. Alternative 5 would be similar to Alternative 1, except that it would reduce bison numbers to 400 through a hunt. Alternative 6 would result in elk numbers declining to 2,400 to 3,200 on the refuge and 1,200 to 1,600 in the park. Bison numbers would decline to an average of 400, and winter feeding would be phased out within five years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to ensuring a viable, sustainable population of bison and elk, which constitute a cultural and historic resource as well as a ecological resource, the plan would protect plant species and other refuge and park resources against excessive damage and destruction due to sudden increases of animal populations in confined areas. The risk of disease amongst the managed animals would decrease significantly as well. Bison and elk habitat would be restored, forage conditions would improve, and supplemental feeding would continue as necessary. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Chronic wasting disease affecting elk herds would could be exacerbated, particularly in the Jackson Hole area, which are large number of animals would congregate to feed regardless of the natural culling of the population. If chronic wasting disease were to arrive prior to phasing out of feeding, it could prove too late to reduce the speed of infection and the prevalence rate. Environmental contamination concentrated on the feedgrounds could continue to infect elk for many years into the future. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0586D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 070034, Final EIS--636 pages, Comments and Reponses to Draft EIS--261 pages, January 24, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 05-32
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Grand Teton National Park
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342616?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Wyoming. Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRASSLAND BYPASS PROJECT, 2010-2019 (2010 USE AGREEMENT), SAN LUIS DRAIN TO MUD SLOUGH, FRESNO, MERCER, AND STANISLAUS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - GRASSLAND BYPASS PROJECT, 2010-2019 (2010 USE AGREEMENT), SAN LUIS DRAIN TO MUD SLOUGH, FRESNO, MERCER, AND STANISLAUS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 756825025; 13708-090025_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The continued use of the San Luis Drain (Drain) to convey agricultural drain water through adjacent management areas to Mud Slough, a tributary of the San Joaquin River, in Fresno and Mercer counties, California is considered. The proposal would involve continuation of the Grassland Bypass Project (2010 Use Agreement) for the period extending from October 1, 2010 through December 31, 2019. The original 1995 agreement establishing the project allowed for the use of the Drain through September 30, 2001. A 2001 agreement allowed continuation of the use of the Drain through December 31, 2009. The water is conveyed though the Drain to separate unusable agricultural drain water discharged from the Grassland Drainage Area (GDA) from wetland water supply conveyance channels and to facilitate drainage management that maintains the viability of agriculture in the project area and promotes continuous improvement of the quality of water in the San Joaquin River. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action would consolidate subsurface drain flows on a regional basis and use a portion of the federal Drain to convey drain flows around wetland habitat areas. The project would collect drain water from the 97,400-acre Grassland Drainage Area and an adjacent 1,100-acre area and place it into the Drain at a point near Russell Avenue (mile post 105.72). The drain water would travel in the Drain to its northern terminus at mile post 78.65. At that point, the drainage would enter Mud Slough and continue six miles before reaching the San Joaquin River three miles upstream of its confluence with the Merced River. The Mud Slough Bypass Alternative, which is the environmentally superior Alternative, would extend the impacts of the project into Stanislaus County. This Alternative would be similar to the proposed action; however, a conveyance facility would be constructed at the terminus of the Drain to convey drain water directly to the San Joaquin River below its confluence with the Merced River. The Drain extension would consist of a canal or an underground pipeline with a 100-cubic-foot-per-second capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continuation of the project would ensure that any use of the Drain beyond September 30, 2001 remained consistent with long-term drainage options and provided for compliance with applicable water quality control programs. Approximately 93 miles of wetland channels would be protected. Use of the Drain would improve water quality in the San Joaquin River and the associated delta and estuary. Under the Mud Slough Bypass Alternative, agricultural drain water would be removed from more than 100 miles of wetland channels. Under either action Alternative, salinity standards would continue to be met, and impacts of salinity in the affected area would continue to be monitored. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, water quality within six miles of Mud Slough and the downstream section of the San Joaquin River would be affected by agricultural drainage and the associated salinity and nutrient levels. Under the Mud Slough Bypass Alternative, new construction could affect archaeological resources and the Drain would not be of sufficient capacity to convey drainage from outside the GDA. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, and San Luis Act (P.L. 86-488), and San Luis Act (P.L. 86-488).
JF  - EPA number: 090025, 877 pages, January 23, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Channels
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Estuaries
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825025?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRASSLAND+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+2010-2019+%282010+USE+AGREEMENT%29%2C+SAN+LUIS+DRAIN+TO+MUD+SLOUGH%2C+FRESNO%2C+MERCER%2C+AND+STANISLAUS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRASSLAND+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+2010-2019+%282010+USE+AGREEMENT%29%2C+SAN+LUIS+DRAIN+TO+MUD+SLOUGH%2C+FRESNO%2C+MERCER%2C+AND+STANISLAUS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento and Fresno, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2009-07-16
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRASSLAND BYPASS PROJECT, 2010-2019 (2010 USE AGREEMENT), SAN LUIS DRAIN TO MUD SLOUGH, FRESNO, MERCER, AND STANISLAUS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - GRASSLAND BYPASS PROJECT, 2010-2019 (2010 USE AGREEMENT), SAN LUIS DRAIN TO MUD SLOUGH, FRESNO, MERCER, AND STANISLAUS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 756824729; 13708-090025_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The continued use of the San Luis Drain (Drain) to convey agricultural drain water through adjacent management areas to Mud Slough, a tributary of the San Joaquin River, in Fresno and Mercer counties, California is considered. The proposal would involve continuation of the Grassland Bypass Project (2010 Use Agreement) for the period extending from October 1, 2010 through December 31, 2019. The original 1995 agreement establishing the project allowed for the use of the Drain through September 30, 2001. A 2001 agreement allowed continuation of the use of the Drain through December 31, 2009. The water is conveyed though the Drain to separate unusable agricultural drain water discharged from the Grassland Drainage Area (GDA) from wetland water supply conveyance channels and to facilitate drainage management that maintains the viability of agriculture in the project area and promotes continuous improvement of the quality of water in the San Joaquin River. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action would consolidate subsurface drain flows on a regional basis and use a portion of the federal Drain to convey drain flows around wetland habitat areas. The project would collect drain water from the 97,400-acre Grassland Drainage Area and an adjacent 1,100-acre area and place it into the Drain at a point near Russell Avenue (mile post 105.72). The drain water would travel in the Drain to its northern terminus at mile post 78.65. At that point, the drainage would enter Mud Slough and continue six miles before reaching the San Joaquin River three miles upstream of its confluence with the Merced River. The Mud Slough Bypass Alternative, which is the environmentally superior Alternative, would extend the impacts of the project into Stanislaus County. This Alternative would be similar to the proposed action; however, a conveyance facility would be constructed at the terminus of the Drain to convey drain water directly to the San Joaquin River below its confluence with the Merced River. The Drain extension would consist of a canal or an underground pipeline with a 100-cubic-foot-per-second capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continuation of the project would ensure that any use of the Drain beyond September 30, 2001 remained consistent with long-term drainage options and provided for compliance with applicable water quality control programs. Approximately 93 miles of wetland channels would be protected. Use of the Drain would improve water quality in the San Joaquin River and the associated delta and estuary. Under the Mud Slough Bypass Alternative, agricultural drain water would be removed from more than 100 miles of wetland channels. Under either action Alternative, salinity standards would continue to be met, and impacts of salinity in the affected area would continue to be monitored. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, water quality within six miles of Mud Slough and the downstream section of the San Joaquin River would be affected by agricultural drainage and the associated salinity and nutrient levels. Under the Mud Slough Bypass Alternative, new construction could affect archaeological resources and the Drain would not be of sufficient capacity to convey drainage from outside the GDA. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, and San Luis Act (P.L. 86-488), and San Luis Act (P.L. 86-488).
JF  - EPA number: 090025, 877 pages, January 23, 2007
PY  - 2007
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Channels
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Estuaries
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824729?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRASSLAND+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+2010-2019+%282010+USE+AGREEMENT%29%2C+SAN+LUIS+DRAIN+TO+MUD+SLOUGH%2C+FRESNO%2C+MERCER%2C+AND+STANISLAUS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRASSLAND+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+2010-2019+%282010+USE+AGREEMENT%29%2C+SAN+LUIS+DRAIN+TO+MUD+SLOUGH%2C+FRESNO%2C+MERCER%2C+AND+STANISLAUS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento and Fresno, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2009-07-16
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MONTANA STATEWIDE FINAL OIL AND GAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND AMENDMENT OF THE POWDER RIVER AND BILLINGS RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003).
AN  - 36344792; 12621
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the management of federal and state coalbed natural gas (CBNG) administered by the Miles City and Billings field offices of the Bureau of Land Management and the state of Montana are proposed. The plan would address resource management in the Powder River Resource Management Plan (RMP) Area, including Powder River, Carter, and Treasure counties and portions of Big Horn, Custer, and Rosebud counties, and the Billings RMP Area, including Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland and Yellowstone counties and the remaining portion of Big Horn County. The combined planning area encompasses 1.5 million acres of federally managed surface and 5.0 million acres of federal mineral estate. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2003. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would allow for CBNG exploration and development on federal, state, and/or fee mineral resource areas subject to agency decisions, lease stipulations, permit requirements, and surface owner agreements. Operators would be required to submit a project plan outlining the proposed development of an area when requesting CBNG well densities greater than one well per 640 acres. All shallow coal seams would have vertical wells installed. For deeper coal seams, the operator would drill directionally or demonstrate in the project plan why directional drilling was not necessary or feasible. Operators would develop single or multiple coal seams per their plans; however, there would be only one well bore per coal seem per designated spacing restriction. Operators would be required to demonstrate in their project plan how impacts to surface resources would be minimized or mitigated. Stipulations regarding release of water during dewatering and release of air pollutants from equipment would also be incorporated into the plans. All mining areas would be reclaimed. This draft supplement to the final EIS responds to a decision of the U.S. District Court requiring the Bureau of Land Management evaluate a phased development alternative for CBNG production. The draft supplement constitutes a reissue of the original final EIS, but it provides additional information and analysis regarding topics identified by the U.S. District Court. Three phased development alternatives for managing oil and gas resources in the planning area are analyzed; a new preferred alternative is selected from amongst the new alternative. The newly preferred alternative (Alternative H) has three key components. First, a phased development approach would be implemented by which CBNG proposals would be reviewed against four filters or screens to determine whether the proposal needed modification. The review screens would be applied to water resources, wildlife habitat, Native American concerns, and air quality. Secondly, this alternative would include extensive requirements that an operator would be required to meet when submitting a plan of development (POD). Thirdly, mitigation measures would be considered and applied to each POD, as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The CBNG produced in the area would provide a substantial energy resource, reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and natural gas. Exploration and production activities would employ local workers and otherwise contribute to the local and regional economies in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development facilities would displace wildlife habitat and farmland and could affect cultural resources. Discharges of sodium could damage soil and degrade water quality in surface and groundwater flows. Compressors and other equipment would generate air pollutants and noise. Transmission lines associated with resource development would mar visual aesthetics in the area. Monitoring wells would be required on land that abuts a Native American reservation. Well development could result in drawdown of the local aquifer. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 02-0129D, Volume 26, Number 2 and 03-0144F, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 070021, Draft Supplemental EIS--670 pages, Appendices--321 pages, January 23, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-07/001
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Coal
KW  - Coal Gasification
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mining
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Montana
KW  - Powder River
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344792?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTANA+STATEWIDE+FINAL+OIL+AND+GAS+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+AND+AMENDMENT+OF+THE+POWDER+RIVER+AND+BILLINGS+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.title=MONTANA+STATEWIDE+FINAL+OIL+AND+GAS+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+AND+AMENDMENT+OF+THE+POWDER+RIVER+AND+BILLINGS+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Billings, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MONTANA STATEWIDE FINAL OIL AND GAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND AMENDMENT OF THE POWDER RIVER AND BILLINGS RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS (SUPPLEMENTAL AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS TO THE DECEMBER 2006 DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003).
AN  - 36342744; 13062
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the management of federal and state coalbed natural gas (CBNG) administered by the Miles City and Billings field offices of the Bureau of Land Management and the state of Montana are proposed. The plan would address resource management in the Powder River Resource Management Plan (RMP) Area, including Powder River, Carter, and Treasure counties and portions of Big Horn, Custer, and Rosebud counties, and the Billings RMP Area, including Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland and Yellowstone counties and the remaining portion of Big Horn County. The combined planning area encompasses 1.5 million acres of federally managed surface and 5.0 million acres of federal mineral estate. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2003. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would allow for CBNG exploration and development on federal, state, and/or fee mineral resource areas subject to agency decisions, lease stipulations, permit requirements, and surface owner agreements. Operators would be required to submit a project plan outlining the proposed development of an area when requesting CBNG well densities greater than one well per 640 acres. All shallow coal seams would have vertical wells installed. For deeper coal seams, the operator would drill directionally or demonstrate in the project plan why directional drilling was not necessary or feasible. Operators would develop single or multiple coal seams per their plans; however, there would be only one well bore per coal seam per designated spacing restriction. Operators would be required to demonstrate in their project plan how impacts to surface resources would be minimized or mitigated. Stipulations regarding release of water during dewatering and release of air pollutants from equipment would also be incorporated into the plans. All mining areas would be reclaimed. A December 2006 draft supplement to the final EIS responded to a decision of the U.S. District Court requiring the Bureau of Land Management evaluate a phased development alternative for CBNG production. The draft supplement constitutes a reissue of the original final EIS, but it provides additional information and analysis regarding topics identified by the U.S. District Court. Three phased development alternatives for managing oil and gas resources in the planning area are analyzed; a new preferred alternative is selected from amongst the new alternative. The newly preferred alternative (Alternative H) has three key components. First, a phased development approach would be implemented by which CBNG proposals would be reviewed against four filters or screens to determine whether the proposal needed modification. The review screens would be applied to water resources, wildlife habitat, Native American concerns, and air quality. Secondly, this alternative would include extensive requirements that an operator would be required to meet when submitting a plan of development (POD). Thirdly, mitigation measures would be considered and applied to each POD, as appropriate. The air quality analysis presented in this supplement to the draft supplement outlines the potential for air quality degradation, including degradation related to scenic resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The CBNG produced in the area would provide a substantial energy resource, reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and natural gas. Exploration and production activities would employ local workers and otherwise contribute to the local and regional economies in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development facilities would displace wildlife habitat and farmland and could affect cultural resources. Discharges of sodium could damage soil and degrade water quality in surface and groundwater flows. Compressors and other equipment would generate air pollutants and noise. Transmission lines associated with resource development would mar visual aesthetics in the area. Monitoring wells would be required on land that abuts a Native American reservation. Well development could result in drawdown of the local aquifer. With respect to the air quality impacts covered in the document at hand, CBNG project activities would be likely to have an impact on air quality, particularly with respect to visibility, within certain high-quality scenic areas, including the North Cheyenne Indian Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 02-0129D, Volume 26, Number 2 and 03-0144F, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 070021, Draft Supplemental EIS-670 pages, Appendices--321 pages, January 23, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-08/003
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Coal
KW  - Coal Gasification
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mining
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wells
KW  - Montana
KW  - Powder River
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342744?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTANA+STATEWIDE+FINAL+OIL+AND+GAS+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+AND+AMENDMENT+OF+THE+POWDER+RIVER+AND+BILLINGS+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+%28SUPPLEMENTAL+AIR+QUALITY+ANALYSIS+TO+THE+DECEMBER+2006+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.title=MONTANA+STATEWIDE+FINAL+OIL+AND+GAS+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+AND+AMENDMENT+OF+THE+POWDER+RIVER+AND+BILLINGS+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+%28SUPPLEMENTAL+AIR+QUALITY+ANALYSIS+TO+THE+DECEMBER+2006+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Billings, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRASSLAND BYPASS PROJECT, 2010-2019 (2010 USE AGREEMENT), SAN LUIS DRAIN TO MUD SLOUGH, FRESNO, MERCER, AND STANISLAUS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 16386966; 13708
AB  - PURPOSE: The continued use of the San Luis Drain (Drain) to convey agricultural drain water through adjacent management areas to Mud Slough, a tributary of the San Joaquin River, in Fresno and Mercer counties, California is considered. The proposal would involve continuation of the Grassland Bypass Project (2010 Use Agreement) for the period extending from October 1, 2010 through December 31, 2019. The original 1995 agreement establishing the project allowed for the use of the Drain through September 30, 2001. A 2001 agreement allowed continuation of the use of the Drain through December 31, 2009. The water is conveyed though the Drain to separate unusable agricultural drain water discharged from the Grassland Drainage Area (GDA) from wetland water supply conveyance channels and to facilitate drainage management that maintains the viability of agriculture in the project area and promotes continuous improvement of the quality of water in the San Joaquin River. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action would consolidate subsurface drain flows on a regional basis and use a portion of the federal Drain to convey drain flows around wetland habitat areas. The project would collect drain water from the 97,400-acre Grassland Drainage Area and an adjacent 1,100-acre area and place it into the Drain at a point near Russell Avenue (mile post 105.72). The drain water would travel in the Drain to its northern terminus at mile post 78.65. At that point, the drainage would enter Mud Slough and continue six miles before reaching the San Joaquin River three miles upstream of its confluence with the Merced River. The Mud Slough Bypass Alternative, which is the environmentally superior Alternative, would extend the impacts of the project into Stanislaus County. This Alternative would be similar to the proposed action; however, a conveyance facility would be constructed at the terminus of the Drain to convey drain water directly to the San Joaquin River below its confluence with the Merced River. The Drain extension would consist of a canal or an underground pipeline with a 100-cubic-foot-per-second capacity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continuation of the project would ensure that any use of the Drain beyond September 30, 2001 remained consistent with long-term drainage options and provided for compliance with applicable water quality control programs. Approximately 93 miles of wetland channels would be protected. Use of the Drain would improve water quality in the San Joaquin River and the associated delta and estuary. Under the Mud Slough Bypass Alternative, agricultural drain water would be removed from more than 100 miles of wetland channels. Under either action Alternative, salinity standards would continue to be met, and impacts of salinity in the affected area would continue to be monitored. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, water quality within six miles of Mud Slough and the downstream section of the San Joaquin River would be affected by agricultural drainage and the associated salinity and nutrient levels. Under the Mud Slough Bypass Alternative, new construction could affect archaeological resources and the Drain would not be of sufficient capacity to convey drainage from outside the GDA. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, and San Luis Act (P.L. 86-488), and San Luis Act (P.L. 86-488).
JF  - EPA number: 090025, 877 pages, January 23, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Water
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Channels
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Estuaries
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16386966?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRASSLAND+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+2010-2019+%282010+USE+AGREEMENT%29%2C+SAN+LUIS+DRAIN+TO+MUD+SLOUGH%2C+FRESNO%2C+MERCER%2C+AND+STANISLAUS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRASSLAND+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+2010-2019+%282010+USE+AGREEMENT%29%2C+SAN+LUIS+DRAIN+TO+MUD+SLOUGH%2C+FRESNO%2C+MERCER%2C+AND+STANISLAUS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento and Fresno, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2009-07-16
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - I-94 JACKSON FREEWAY MODERNIZATION PROJECT, M-60 TO SARGENT ROAD, JACKSON COUNTY, MICHIGAN.
AN  - 36342666; 12611
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement of a nine-mile segment of Interstate 94 (I-94) through the Jackson urban area of Jackson County, Michigan is proposed. The study corridor extends from Michigan Route 60 to Sargent Road. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in detail in the March 2002 draft EIS. Alternative I would provide road improvements along the existing alignment throughout the entire project areas, including construction of three continuous travel lanes in each direction, with a fourth auxiliary lane within some sections. The BL interchange would be relocated and combined with the Sargent Road Interchange. All bridges in the project corridor would be replaced. Modifications to local roads in the area would include modifications of elevation (profile), shifting centerline alignments, and addition of travel lanes. The major difference distinguishing Alternative II from Alternative I would involve interchange configuration designs. The major differences distinguishing Alternative III from Alternative I would involve the locations of the auxiliary lanes and interchange configurations. In 2002, costs of Alternatives I, II, and III were estimated at $345 million, $465 million, and $440 million, respectively; all cost figures were in 2001 dollars. This abbreviated final EIS identifies the preferred alternative, and provides new cost estimates for that alternative. Cost of the preferred Alternative is estimated at $409 million in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve and modernize deteriorating road segments and bridges, enhance travel efficiency and roadway capacity, and improve motorist safety by upgrading roadway geometrics. Minor economic benefits would result from better access and minor improvements in pedestrian and bicycle circulation would be realized. Response times for emergency vehicles using I-94 would decrease. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the rights-of-way requirements, ranging from 61 to 122 acres, would result in the displacement of 2.9 acres of prime farmland, 10 to 15 acres of active farmland, four to 18 residences, seven to 11 businesses, and parking spaces at three to five properties. The project would also affect 3.6 to 3.8 acres of floodplain, 31.5 to 36.5 acres of wetlands, up to 1.5 acres of Indiana bat habitat, and one historic site. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 223 to 229 sensitive receptors. It is as yet inconclusive as to whether impacts would disproportionally affect minority and/or low-income populations. Construction workers would encounter five or six hazardous materials sites. Under the preferred alternative, rights-of-way development, encompassing 111 acres, would result in the displacement of nine owned residences, three rental units, eight businesses, and two county buildings. Approximately 32.1 acres of wetland would be lost. Traffic generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 220 sensitive residential receptor sites. 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 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0210D, Volume 26, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 070011, Final EIS--151 pages and maps, Draft EIS--291 pages and maps, January 12, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-02-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Parking
KW  - Relocation Plans
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Michigan
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342666?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-01-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94+JACKSON+FREEWAY+MODERNIZATION+PROJECT%2C+M-60+TO+SARGENT+ROAD%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=I-94+JACKSON+FREEWAY+MODERNIZATION+PROJECT%2C+M-60+TO+SARGENT+ROAD%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing, Michigan; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 12, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PLAN, BANDELIER NATIONAL MONUMENT, LOS ALAMOS AND SANDOVAL COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 36342994; 12607
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecological restoration plan within the Bandelier National monument of Los Alamos and Sandoval counties, New Mexico is proposed. The 33,727-acre monument, which includes 23,267 acres of designated wilderness area, lies in north-central New Mexico, 10 miles southwest of Los Alamos and 50 miles northwest of Santa Fe. Historic grazing beginning around 1880, followed by active fire suppression several decades later, effectively removed natural fire disturbance from many areas. Over 100 years without fire resulted in major changes to plant communities, particularly involving the expansion of pinon-juniper woodlands at lower elevations and of ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest at higher elevations. This increased the potential for crown fires in upper elevation ponderosa and mixed conifer forests and decreased herbaceous understory and fine fuels necessary to carry frequent, low-intensity surface fires in lower elevation ponderosa pine savannna and grasslands. Consequently, fire sensitive pinon and juniper invaded these lower elevation systems, eventually suppressing understory growth and enhance widespread mortality of the ponderosa overstory during major droughts. The loss of herbaceous understory in these former grasslands and pine savannas created vast expanses of bare soil vulnerable to runoff and erosion through much of Bandelier's woodland. Accelerated soil erosion poses a significant threat to prehistoric cultural resources, which can be washed away during thunderstorms. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which represents current management conditions, are considered in this draft EIS. Specific issues addressed by the action alternatives are related to re-establishment of healthy, sustainable, grass-dominated plant communities within the pinon-juniper woodland, which would help stabilize soils and the cultural resources preserved within them. Both action Alternatives would involve the implementation of annual treatment plans, imposition of seasonal work restrictions to minimize visitor disturbance, the use of minimally disruptive equipment to prevent damage to the habitat of special status species, implementation of special measures to protect archaeological resource sites, implementation of a research and monitoring program along side the management program, and implementation of an public education and consultation component. Since all treatments would occur in designated wilderness, management actions in the pinon-juniper woodland would be subject to the minimum requirement analysis concept at the programmatic and project level to determine the appropriateness of intervention and of the use of hand or motorized tools and equipment. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, would maximize the efficiency of treatment and minimize impacts and the implementation timeframe. Geography and logistics would determine the location and timing of treatment. Crews would complete restoration in a wave-like fashion by working systematically across the monument the southwest to the northeast. The pinon-juniper would be divided into approximately equal combinations of sub-basins, each approximately 800 acres in extent. Field seasons would generally run from September to May and two six- to 10-worker crews would be employed, with treatments being applied at the rate of 50 acres per month per crew. Up to eight, one-acre backcountry camps would be established, and establishment and supply of some camps would require the use of helicopters. Alternative C would use the same treatment strategies as Alternative B; the difference being the implementation timeframe would be extended to 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Both Alternative B and Alternative C would also stabilize soils and cultural resources and would promote healthy sustainable plant communities; the implementation timeframe under Alternative C, however, would allow damage to archaeological sites to continue for a much longer period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance of wilderness areas and the intrusion of equipment, camps, and aircraft into the wilderness would degrade the pristine character of the area and the general value of the wilderness. These impacts would be temporary. Visitor experience would be somewhat degraded in the areas undergoing treatment, but planning would minimize visitor-crew encounters. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 070007, 367 pages, January 9, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: NPS D-184
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Forests
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Monuments
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Bandelier National Monument
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342994?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ECOLOGICAL+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+BANDELIER+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+LOS+ALAMOS+AND+SANDOVAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=ECOLOGICAL+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+BANDELIER+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+LOS+ALAMOS+AND+SANDOVAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bandelier National Monument, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 9, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRANSFER OF THE FACILITIES, WORKS, AND LANDS OF THE GILA PROJECT, WELLTON-MOHAWK DIVISION, TO WELLTON-MOWHAK IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT, YUMA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
AN  - 36342886; 12605
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of irrigation facilities and rights of the Wellton-Mohawk Division (Division) of the Gila project in Yuma County, Arizona from the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District is proposed. The Division serves the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District, which has repaid the federal costs of construction of the division. The District, which covers an area 45 miles in length and as much as seven miles in width, encompasses an area of 130,000 acres. Reclamation proposed to transfer ownership of half of the Division's irrigation, drainage, and flood control facilities to the District, transfer certain lands acquired for the Division on behalf of Reclamation to the District, and make certain other lands acquired in connection with the Division available for purchase by the District. In addition to the proposal, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative, under which facilities of the Division and lands within or adjacent to the Gila Project would remain in federal ownership. Under the proposed action, the following facilities would be transferred: irrigation canals and laterals extending throughout the District; the Wellton-Mohawk Conveyance Channel (main drain) and various small drains; protective dikes that prevent damage to canals from overland runoff; floodways that convey overland runoff to the Gila River channel; the Gila River Flood Channel and related mitigation areas; and various buildings used for the operation and maintenance of the Division. Lands to be transferred include rights-of-way, lands under easement, and lands acquired or withdrawn by Reclamation; a total of 29,091 acres of rights-of-way and easements would be transferred. The costs of land acquisition were not included in the District's repayment obligation. Consequently, these lands, totaling 28,237 acres, would be made available for the District to purchase at fair market value. The potential for the development of sand and gravel operations in the area would continue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land and facilities transfer would follow Reclamation policy to make such transfers when the transferred resources are not identified as having national importance and can be efficiently and effectively managed by nonfederal entities. Reclamation costs for operating, maintaining, managing, and regulating the affected lands and resources would be eliminated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Future sand and gravel developments would not require compliance with federal regulations promulgated under the National Environmental Policy Act. Biological resource impacts resulting from projects in the area would no longer fall under protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act, excepting developments in Gila River Flood Channel lands Federal protection for cultural resources would also be lost LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Gila Project Act of 1947 (P.L 272), and Wellton-Mohawk Transfer Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-221). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0119D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 070005, 561 pages, January 5, 2007
PY  - 2007
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 06-53
KW  - Canals
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodways
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Gila Project Act of 1947, Compliance
KW  - Wellton-Mohawk Transfer Act of 2000, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342886?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSFER+OF+THE+FACILITIES%2C+WORKS%2C+AND+LANDS+OF+THE+GILA+PROJECT%2C+WELLTON-MOHAWK+DIVISION%2C+TO+WELLTON-MOWHAK+IRRIGATION+AND+DRAINAGE+DISTRICT%2C+YUMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=TRANSFER+OF+THE+FACILITIES%2C+WORKS%2C+AND+LANDS+OF+THE+GILA+PROJECT%2C+WELLTON-MOHAWK+DIVISION%2C+TO+WELLTON-MOWHAK+IRRIGATION+AND+DRAINAGE+DISTRICT%2C+YUMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 5, 2007
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Florissant fossil beds
AN  - 50082159; 2010-016990
JF  - Florissant fossil beds
Y1  - 2007
PY  - 2007
DA  - 2007
PB  - U. S. Department of the Interior
KW  - Scale: 1:70,000
KW  - Type: geologic map
KW  - United States
KW  - landforms
KW  - geologic maps
KW  - Pisces
KW  - Cenozoic
KW  - volcanic features
KW  - Florissant Lake Beds
KW  - Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument
KW  - mass movements
KW  - Invertebrata
KW  - Insecta
KW  - Plantae
KW  - fossil wood
KW  - Chordata
KW  - lahars
KW  - faunal studies
KW  - Aves
KW  - Tertiary
KW  - Arthropoda
KW  - floral studies
KW  - maps
KW  - Mandibulata
KW  - geomorphology
KW  - Vertebrata
KW  - Teller County Colorado
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Tetrapoda
KW  - 08:General paleontology
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50082159?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Florissant+fossil+beds&rft.atitle=Florissant+fossil+beds&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Florissant+fossil+beds&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2010-01-01
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch map
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Pinnacles National Monument, California
AN  - 50078057; 2010-021370
JF  - Pinnacles National Monument, California
Y1  - 2007
PY  - 2007
DA  - 2007
PB  - U. S. Department of the Interior
KW  - Scale: 1:55,500
KW  - Type: base map
KW  - United States
KW  - caves
KW  - national parks
KW  - landforms
KW  - ecosystems
KW  - vegetation
KW  - public lands
KW  - biota
KW  - California
KW  - maps
KW  - Pinnacles National Monument
KW  - ecology
KW  - San Benito County California
KW  - geomorphology
KW  - base maps
KW  - 14:Geologic maps
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50078057?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Pinnacles+National+Monument%2C+California&rft.atitle=Pinnacles+National+Monument%2C+California&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2007-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Pinnacles+National+Monument%2C+California&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2010-01-01
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch map
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
AN  - 19473013; 8109294
AB  - We summarized inventory and monitoring efforts for plants and vertebrates at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (NM) in Arizona. We used data from previous research to compile complete species lists for the monument and to assess inventory completeness. There have been 1,031 species of plants and vertebrates observed at the monument. Most of the species on the list are documented by voucher specimens. There are 59 non- native species established in the monument: one mammal, three birds, and 55 non-native plants. Most non-native plant species were first recorded along roads. In each taxon-specific chapter, we highlight areas that contribute disproportionately to species richness or that have unique species for the monument. Of particular importance are Quitobaquito Springs and Pond, which are responsible for the monument having one of the highest number of bird species in the Sonoran Desert Network of parks. Quitobaquito also contains the only fish in the monument, the endangered Quitobaquito pupfish (Cyprinodon eremus). Other important resources for the plants and vertebrates include the xeroriparian washes (e.g., Alamo Canyon) and the Ajo Mountains. Based on the review of past studies, we believe the inventories of vascular plants and vertebrates are nearly complete and that the monument has one of the most complete inventories of any unit in the Sonoran Desert Network
JF  - Open-file Report. U.S. Geological Survey
AU  - Schmidt, CA
AU  - Powell, B F
AU  - Halvorsen, W L
Y1  - 2007
PY  - 2007
DA  - 2007
SP  - 72
PB  - United States Geological Survey
KW  - Ecology Abstracts
KW  - USGS-OFR-2006-1076
KW  - D 04040:Ecosystem and Ecology Studies
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19473013?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Ecology+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Schmidt%2C+CA%3BPowell%2C+B+F%3BHalvorsen%2C+W+L&rft.aulast=Schmidt&rft.aufirst=CA&rft.date=2007-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=72&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Plant+and+Vertebrate+Inventory+of+Organ+Pipe+Cactus+National+Monument&rft.title=Plant+and+Vertebrate+Inventory+of+Organ+Pipe+Cactus+National+Monument&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Product reproduced from digital image. Order this product from NTIS by: phone at 1-800-553-NTIS (U.S. customers); (703)605-6000 (other countries); fax at (703)605-6900; e-mail: orders[at]ntis.gov. NTIS Prices: PC A05/MF A01
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-14
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - POCATELLO FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN IDAHO.
AN  - 36346643; 12595
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the general land and resources management plan for the Pocatello Resource Management Area of southeastern Idaho is proposed. The management area encompasses 5.1 million acres of land, of which 613,800 acres are administered by the BLM, 1.1 million acres by the Forest Service, 35,900 by the Fish and Wildlife Service, 519,800 by the Fort Hall Indians, 324,4000 by the state of Idaho, and 2.4 million by private owners. The area also includes 99,500 acres of waterbodies. The Pocatello general management plan has not been revised since 1988, after which the area has been affected by news laws, regulations, and policies; altered conditions on public lands; and new and emerging demands on public lands. Revision of the existing management plan is particularly necessary with respect to vegetation management, special status species, fire management, recreational resource uses, retention and disposal of public land and identification of lands with potential for alternative energy developments, mineral exploitation, and special area designations. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and related user conflict, containment of hazardous substances and other contaminants from mining and reclamation activities, acquisition and maintenance of access to public lands, provisions for an appropriate balance between recreational use and other resource use and management, management of the sagebrush ecosystem, and provisions for an appropriate balance between socioeconomic benefits and commodity and amenity use benefits. The alternative management schemes under consideration also address the designation of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern and the suitability of river segments for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Four Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B has been identified as the preferred alternative. Key components of Alternative B would include provisions to address special status species and vegetation, particularly the sagebrush ecosystem; adjustment of land tenure arrangements to improve administrative efficiency and protect resources, while supporting appropriate resource exploitation and improving public access; management of mineral and energy resources; restriction of OHV opportunities and use; and implementation of a prescribed fire direction to provide for a broad range of vegetative times and to move the area toward a natural fire regime condition. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred action, would focus on a balanced combination of resource protection and use that would provide benefits for the broadest range of public uses. Constraints would be implemented that were less restrictive than under Alternative C, but more restrictive than under Alternative D. Likewise, Alternative B would accommodate a higher level of production of food, fiber, minerals, and services through use of public lands than Alternative C, but a lower level than Alternative D. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The restoration and enhancement of resource values and special status species habitat under the preferred alternative would be the least effective of all the action alternatives. Mineral extraction and other activities resulting from establishment of the plan would result in disturbance to watershed soils and vegetation, consumption of water, reduction of air quality, emissions of noise, fragmentation of wildlife habitat, continued conflicts between mineral developers and grazing allotment holders, degradation of visual quality, damage to cultural and paleontological resources, and reduction of dispersed and other recreational opportunities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060541, 451 pages, December 27, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-06/010+1610
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Geothermal Resources
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mining
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Pocatello Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346643?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-12-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POCATELLO+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+IDAHO.&rft.title=POCATELLO+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 27, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CLACKAMAS RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, CLAKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON (FERC PROJECT NO. 2195).
AN  - 36349418; 12584
AB  - PURPOSE: The relicensing of the existing 173-megawatt (MW) Clackamas Hydroelectric Project located on the Clackamas River in Clackamas County, Oregon is proposed by the project's owner/operator, Portland General Electric Company (PG&E). The 2,478-acre project site lies in the vicinity of Estacada and 30 miles southeast of Portland. The sites is managed by the U.S. Forest Service (2,365 acres) and the Bureau of Land Management (113 acres). Facilities operated under the licensing agreements include three reservoirs on the Oak Grove Fork of the Clackamas River drainage known as the Oak Grove Development and including Timothy Lake, the Lake Harriet Diversion, and Frog Lake, and the North Fork, Faraday, and River Mill developments, three impoundments and associated hydroelectric facilities on the mainstem of the Clackamas. The power generated by the project provides approximately 72 percent of the current need for power by PG&E's 733,000 customers in the region; this constitutes 40 percent of the electrical power supplied in Oregon. Five species of anadromonous fish occur within the project area, including wild late-run and naturalized early-run coho salmon, spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon, winter-and-summer-run steelhead trout, coastal cutthroat trout, and Pacific lamprey. Key issues associated with relicensing this project include those related to erosion and sediment control, water quality and quantity, fish resources and habitat and protection enhancement, fish passage, terrestrial habitat connectivity, potential impacts to federally protected species of wildlife and plants, enhancement of local recreational opportunities, land use and socioeconomics, aesthetic resources, and cultural resources. In addition to the No Action Alternative, which would allow the project to continue to operate under existing licensing conditions, and the applicant's proposal, this final EIS addresses the proposal as modified by recommendations by Federal Energy Regulatory Agency staff; the latter constitute the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the staff's preferred alternative, the project would provide a significant and dependable source of electrical energy for the region; avoid the need for an equivalent output of fossil-fuel generation of electric output and capacity, thereby continuing to conserve non-renewable energy resources and reduce atmosphere pollution; and implement reasonable environmental measures to ensure protection and enhancement of the riverine ecology and associated fishery resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the staff alternative, the project would cost approximately $18.7 million annually to operate, an amount $9.3 million greater than under the No Action Alternative. Power benefits would be worth $30.2 million, $2.3 million less than under the No Action Alternative. Net annual benefits would amount to $11.5 million, $11.5 million less than under the No Action Alternative. The project's average annual generation would be 695,366 MW-hours, 60,225 MW-hours less than under the No Action Alternative. Operation of the reservoirs would continue to displace free-flowing river stretches and inundate riparian and terrestrial habitat, including wetlands. Fluctuations upstream and downstream of the dams would continue to result in scour in downstream areas and mudflats in upstream areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0465D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060531, 747 pages, December 20, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0187F
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Clackamas River
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance
KW  - Federal Power Act of 1920, Licensing
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349418?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-12-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLACKAMAS+RIVER+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+CLAKAMAS+COUNTY%2C+OREGON+%28FERC+PROJECT+NO.+2195%29.&rft.title=CLACKAMAS+RIVER+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+CLAKAMAS+COUNTY%2C+OREGON+%28FERC+PROJECT+NO.+2195%29.&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 - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 20, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WETLAND AND CREEK RESTORATION AT BIG LAGOON, MUIR BEACH, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36342314; 12567
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a wetland creek ecosystem restoration plan at Big Lagoon, Muir Beach, Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), Marin County, California is proposed. The 38-acre project site is located entirely within the boundaries of the GGNRA, but includes some properties owned by the Sa Francisco Zen Center and Marin County. The site lies at the mouth of the Redwood Creek watershed, which is part of one of 25 global diversity "hot spots" recognized by The Nature Conservancy and targeted by the global conservation community as key to preserving the world's ecosystems. It is situated within the Golden Gate Biosphere Reserve, one of 411 reserves designated by UNESCO and the Biosphere Program to provide a global network representing the world's major ecosystem types. Restoration needs ad opportunities at the site have long been recognized due to a history of poor land uses at the site that have significantly altered the creek, wetland riparian, and dune ecosystems in the area. Moreover, the current hydrologic/hydraulic character of the area results in recurrent flooding of Pacific Way. This draft EIS addresses three restoration alternatives, four alternatives addressing the need to replace the Existing Pacific Way Bridge, six public access alternatives addressing parking accommodations, and five fill disposal alternatives addressing the reuse or disposal of fill generated by construction activities associated with the restoration an public access alternatives. A No Action Alternative is considered in addition to the action alternatives. A set of preferred alternatives has been identified. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would restore a functional, self-sustaining ecosystem, including wetland, riparian, and aquatic components and conduct the restoration in a manner that would recreate habitat for sustainable populations of special status species, reduce flooding on Pacific Way, and provide a compatible. Plan implementation would restore lost natural creek function, remove hydraulic obstructions created by a parking lot and levee, regenerate salmonid habitat, and restore currently unsustainable habitat for the endangered California red-legged frog. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In the short-term, plan implementation would disturb vegetation communities, reduce recreational opportunities, degrade visual aesthetics, hamper visitor access to the area and visitor parking accommodations, and elevate noise levels in noise-sensitive areas frequented by residents and visitors. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060514, 1,276 pages, December 11, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Disposal
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - Golden Gate National Recreation Area
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342314?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WETLAND+AND+CREEK+RESTORATION+AT+BIG+LAGOON%2C+MUIR+BEACH%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WETLAND+AND+CREEK+RESTORATION+AT+BIG+LAGOON%2C+MUIR+BEACH%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PINEDALE ANTICLINE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1999).
AN  - 36343257; 12565
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 draft supplement to the October 1999 final EIS analyzes three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and the applicants' proposal. The draft 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, 00-0034D, Volume 24, Number 1 and 00-0262F, Volume 24, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 060512, Draft Supplemental EIS--3031 pages, Appendices--266 pages, Air Quality Technical Document (1)--251 pages, Air Quality Technical Document (2)--278 pages, December 6, 2006
PY  - 2006
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  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
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/36343257?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-12-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PINEDALE+ANTICLINE+OIL+AND+GAS+EXPLORATION+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING+%28DRAFT+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+%28DRAFT+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 - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 6, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH DELTA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, OLD RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36342700; 12557
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of the South Delta Improvements Program (SDIP) in the San Joaquin River watershed of Central Valley, California is proposed. The SDIP would be designed to reduce the movement of San Joaquin River watershed Central Valley fall and late fall run Chinook salmon into the south Delta via the Old River; maintain adequate water levels and, through improved circulation, water quality available for agricultural diversions in the south Delta, downstream of the head of Old River; and increase water delivery reliability for State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) water contractors south of the Delta and provide opportunities to convey water for fish and wildlife refuge purposes by increasing the maximum permitted level of diversion through the existing intake gates at Clifton Court Forebay from 6,680 to 8,500 cubic feet per second (cfs). This final EIS focuses on site-specific and system-wide impacts of implementing actions that would improve water deliveries for south Delta agriculture, improve fish protection, and increase the amount and reliability of water deliveries for the SWP and CVP. The basic actions related to the physical/structural component and the operational component of the SDIP would include: 1) replacement of the seasonal barrier with a permanent operable fish control gate on Old River, such that where Old River splits from the San Joaquin River, a permanent operable fish control gate would be constructed and operated to keep young salmon in the San Joaquin River as they migrate to the ocean in the spring and to increase to dissolved oxygen in the San Joaquin River for adult salmon in the river as they migrate upstream in the fall; 2) replacement of inefficient seasonal barriers with permanent operable flow control gates on Middle River, Grant Line Canal and Old River to allow water to flow during times of high water and flooding, while maintaining water levels in Delta channels for local water users during the irrigation season and improving water circulation to help manage water quality in the south Delta; 3) dredging of portions of the Middle River, Old River, and West, Grant Line, Victoria and North Canals to improve flows in the south Delta channels of those flows; and 4) increasing the permitted limit for diversions into Clifton Court Forebay from a range of 6,680 to 6,680 cfs to the level of SWP Banks Pumping Plant (SWP Banks) installed pumping capacity of 8,500 cfs. Implementation and annual operations and maintenance costs for the SDIP are estimated at $110.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SDIP would constitute a long-term comprehensive plan to improve water management for beneficial uses and coordination between state and federal water projects. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 14 acres of nonjurisdictional riparian habitat, 1 acre of tule and cattail tidal emergent wetland, and 6 acres of tidal perennial aquatic habitat would be purchased to offset impacts to terrestrial biological resources resulting from the construction and operation of the gates, dredging, and other construction activities during the implementation of the Stage 1 decision. Depending on the results of preconstruction surveys, DWR and Reclamation may also need to purchase Mason's lilaeopsis habitat at a ratio of 5-10 acres per acre affected by the project SDIP structures would be constructed in an area exposed to seismic movements and liquefaction. Anadramous fish species would be affected somewhat by entrainment in project works. A number of federally protected plant, terrestrial, and bird species would be affected by project structures and operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0172D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 060504, Volume I--743 pages, Volume 2--701 pages, Volume 3--321 pages, December 5, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 06-56
KW  - Birds
KW  - Diversion Structures
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Old River
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342700?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DELTA+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+OLD+RIVER+BASIN%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DELTA+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+OLD+RIVER+BASIN%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36406702; 13336
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the comprehensive land resource management plan for the Yuma Resource Management Area of Arizona and California is proposed. The 1.3-million-acre planning area extends northward from the Mexican border at San Luis, Arizona to north of Blythe, California and Ehrenberg, Arizona, including a narrow strip of land in Imperial and Riverside counties, California and a portion of La Paz County, Arizona. The area includes the city of Yuma, the towns of Quartzsite and Wellton, and a number of smaller communities. The area has been affected by population growth and changing demographics, increased and conflicting demands on the area's resources and resource uses, increased complexity of resource management issues, and increased off-highway vehicle use on public lands. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to special area designations, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation resources, transportation, wilderness values, and land use and realty considerations. Specific management provisions address land health standards, special area designations and management, coordinated management areas, vegetation, wildland fire, fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, livestock grazing, wild horse and burro herds, recreation management, travel management, visual resources, wilderness, cultural resources, paleontological resources, air and water quality, soils, land realty, mineral resources, public health and safety, best management practices, and environmental monitoring. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternatives would emphasize appropriate human use and influences On the wide array of uses. Alternative C would emphasize visitor opportunities to experience the natural and cultural values of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize the preservation of natural and cultural resources by limiting public access and use and discontinuing livestock grazing. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for an optimal balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources within the planning area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would allow for management of the public lands and resources within the planning area for multiple uses and sustained yield to ensure that these lands and resources were utilized in a manner that would best meet the present and future needs of the public. 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 07-0054D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080102, Volume I--441 pages, Volume II--721 pages, Map Supplement, CD-ROM, December 4, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Yuma Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36406702?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA+AND+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA+AND+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 6]
T2  - YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36384382; 13336-080102_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the comprehensive land resource management plan for the Yuma Resource Management Area of Arizona and California is proposed. The 1.3-million-acre planning area extends northward from the Mexican border at San Luis, Arizona to north of Blythe, California and Ehrenberg, Arizona, including a narrow strip of land in Imperial and Riverside counties, California and a portion of La Paz County, Arizona. The area includes the city of Yuma, the towns of Quartzsite and Wellton, and a number of smaller communities. The area has been affected by population growth and changing demographics, increased and conflicting demands on the area's resources and resource uses, increased complexity of resource management issues, and increased off-highway vehicle use on public lands. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to special area designations, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation resources, transportation, wilderness values, and land use and realty considerations. Specific management provisions address land health standards, special area designations and management, coordinated management areas, vegetation, wildland fire, fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, livestock grazing, wild horse and burro herds, recreation management, travel management, visual resources, wilderness, cultural resources, paleontological resources, air and water quality, soils, land realty, mineral resources, public health and safety, best management practices, and environmental monitoring. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternatives would emphasize appropriate human use and influences On the wide array of uses. Alternative C would emphasize visitor opportunities to experience the natural and cultural values of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize the preservation of natural and cultural resources by limiting public access and use and discontinuing livestock grazing. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for an optimal balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources within the planning area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would allow for management of the public lands and resources within the planning area for multiple uses and sustained yield to ensure that these lands and resources were utilized in a manner that would best meet the present and future needs of the public. 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 07-0054D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080102, Volume I--441 pages, Volume II--721 pages, Map Supplement, CD-ROM, December 4, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 4
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Yuma Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384382?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA+AND+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA+AND+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 6]
T2  - YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36383415; 13336-080102_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the comprehensive land resource management plan for the Yuma Resource Management Area of Arizona and California is proposed. The 1.3-million-acre planning area extends northward from the Mexican border at San Luis, Arizona to north of Blythe, California and Ehrenberg, Arizona, including a narrow strip of land in Imperial and Riverside counties, California and a portion of La Paz County, Arizona. The area includes the city of Yuma, the towns of Quartzsite and Wellton, and a number of smaller communities. The area has been affected by population growth and changing demographics, increased and conflicting demands on the area's resources and resource uses, increased complexity of resource management issues, and increased off-highway vehicle use on public lands. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to special area designations, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation resources, transportation, wilderness values, and land use and realty considerations. Specific management provisions address land health standards, special area designations and management, coordinated management areas, vegetation, wildland fire, fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, livestock grazing, wild horse and burro herds, recreation management, travel management, visual resources, wilderness, cultural resources, paleontological resources, air and water quality, soils, land realty, mineral resources, public health and safety, best management practices, and environmental monitoring. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternatives would emphasize appropriate human use and influences On the wide array of uses. Alternative C would emphasize visitor opportunities to experience the natural and cultural values of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize the preservation of natural and cultural resources by limiting public access and use and discontinuing livestock grazing. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for an optimal balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources within the planning area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would allow for management of the public lands and resources within the planning area for multiple uses and sustained yield to ensure that these lands and resources were utilized in a manner that would best meet the present and future needs of the public. 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 07-0054D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080102, Volume I--441 pages, Volume II--721 pages, Map Supplement, CD-ROM, December 4, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 3
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Yuma Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383415?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA+AND+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA+AND+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 6]
T2  - YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36383384; 13336-080102_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the comprehensive land resource management plan for the Yuma Resource Management Area of Arizona and California is proposed. The 1.3-million-acre planning area extends northward from the Mexican border at San Luis, Arizona to north of Blythe, California and Ehrenberg, Arizona, including a narrow strip of land in Imperial and Riverside counties, California and a portion of La Paz County, Arizona. The area includes the city of Yuma, the towns of Quartzsite and Wellton, and a number of smaller communities. The area has been affected by population growth and changing demographics, increased and conflicting demands on the area's resources and resource uses, increased complexity of resource management issues, and increased off-highway vehicle use on public lands. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to special area designations, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation resources, transportation, wilderness values, and land use and realty considerations. Specific management provisions address land health standards, special area designations and management, coordinated management areas, vegetation, wildland fire, fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, livestock grazing, wild horse and burro herds, recreation management, travel management, visual resources, wilderness, cultural resources, paleontological resources, air and water quality, soils, land realty, mineral resources, public health and safety, best management practices, and environmental monitoring. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternatives would emphasize appropriate human use and influences On the wide array of uses. Alternative C would emphasize visitor opportunities to experience the natural and cultural values of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize the preservation of natural and cultural resources by limiting public access and use and discontinuing livestock grazing. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for an optimal balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources within the planning area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would allow for management of the public lands and resources within the planning area for multiple uses and sustained yield to ensure that these lands and resources were utilized in a manner that would best meet the present and future needs of the public. 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 07-0054D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080102, Volume I--441 pages, Volume II--721 pages, Map Supplement, CD-ROM, December 4, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Yuma Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383384?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA+AND+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA+AND+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 6]
T2  - YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36383065; 13336-080102_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the comprehensive land resource management plan for the Yuma Resource Management Area of Arizona and California is proposed. The 1.3-million-acre planning area extends northward from the Mexican border at San Luis, Arizona to north of Blythe, California and Ehrenberg, Arizona, including a narrow strip of land in Imperial and Riverside counties, California and a portion of La Paz County, Arizona. The area includes the city of Yuma, the towns of Quartzsite and Wellton, and a number of smaller communities. The area has been affected by population growth and changing demographics, increased and conflicting demands on the area's resources and resource uses, increased complexity of resource management issues, and increased off-highway vehicle use on public lands. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to special area designations, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation resources, transportation, wilderness values, and land use and realty considerations. Specific management provisions address land health standards, special area designations and management, coordinated management areas, vegetation, wildland fire, fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, livestock grazing, wild horse and burro herds, recreation management, travel management, visual resources, wilderness, cultural resources, paleontological resources, air and water quality, soils, land realty, mineral resources, public health and safety, best management practices, and environmental monitoring. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternatives would emphasize appropriate human use and influences On the wide array of uses. Alternative C would emphasize visitor opportunities to experience the natural and cultural values of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize the preservation of natural and cultural resources by limiting public access and use and discontinuing livestock grazing. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for an optimal balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources within the planning area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would allow for management of the public lands and resources within the planning area for multiple uses and sustained yield to ensure that these lands and resources were utilized in a manner that would best meet the present and future needs of the public. 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 07-0054D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080102, Volume I--441 pages, Volume II--721 pages, Map Supplement, CD-ROM, December 4, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Yuma Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383065?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA+AND+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA+AND+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 6]
T2  - YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36382802; 13336-080102_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the comprehensive land resource management plan for the Yuma Resource Management Area of Arizona and California is proposed. The 1.3-million-acre planning area extends northward from the Mexican border at San Luis, Arizona to north of Blythe, California and Ehrenberg, Arizona, including a narrow strip of land in Imperial and Riverside counties, California and a portion of La Paz County, Arizona. The area includes the city of Yuma, the towns of Quartzsite and Wellton, and a number of smaller communities. The area has been affected by population growth and changing demographics, increased and conflicting demands on the area's resources and resource uses, increased complexity of resource management issues, and increased off-highway vehicle use on public lands. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to special area designations, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation resources, transportation, wilderness values, and land use and realty considerations. Specific management provisions address land health standards, special area designations and management, coordinated management areas, vegetation, wildland fire, fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, livestock grazing, wild horse and burro herds, recreation management, travel management, visual resources, wilderness, cultural resources, paleontological resources, air and water quality, soils, land realty, mineral resources, public health and safety, best management practices, and environmental monitoring. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternatives would emphasize appropriate human use and influences On the wide array of uses. Alternative C would emphasize visitor opportunities to experience the natural and cultural values of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize the preservation of natural and cultural resources by limiting public access and use and discontinuing livestock grazing. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for an optimal balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources within the planning area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would allow for management of the public lands and resources within the planning area for multiple uses and sustained yield to ensure that these lands and resources were utilized in a manner that would best meet the present and future needs of the public. 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 07-0054D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080102, Volume I--441 pages, Volume II--721 pages, Map Supplement, CD-ROM, December 4, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 6
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Yuma Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382802?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA+AND+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA+AND+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 6]
T2  - YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36382781; 13336-080102_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the comprehensive land resource management plan for the Yuma Resource Management Area of Arizona and California is proposed. The 1.3-million-acre planning area extends northward from the Mexican border at San Luis, Arizona to north of Blythe, California and Ehrenberg, Arizona, including a narrow strip of land in Imperial and Riverside counties, California and a portion of La Paz County, Arizona. The area includes the city of Yuma, the towns of Quartzsite and Wellton, and a number of smaller communities. The area has been affected by population growth and changing demographics, increased and conflicting demands on the area's resources and resource uses, increased complexity of resource management issues, and increased off-highway vehicle use on public lands. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to special area designations, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation resources, transportation, wilderness values, and land use and realty considerations. Specific management provisions address land health standards, special area designations and management, coordinated management areas, vegetation, wildland fire, fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, livestock grazing, wild horse and burro herds, recreation management, travel management, visual resources, wilderness, cultural resources, paleontological resources, air and water quality, soils, land realty, mineral resources, public health and safety, best management practices, and environmental monitoring. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternatives would emphasize appropriate human use and influences On the wide array of uses. Alternative C would emphasize visitor opportunities to experience the natural and cultural values of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize the preservation of natural and cultural resources by limiting public access and use and discontinuing livestock grazing. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for an optimal balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources within the planning area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would allow for management of the public lands and resources within the planning area for multiple uses and sustained yield to ensure that these lands and resources were utilized in a manner that would best meet the present and future needs of the public. 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 07-0054D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080102, Volume I--441 pages, Volume II--721 pages, Map Supplement, CD-ROM, December 4, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 5
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Yuma Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382781?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA+AND+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA+AND+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36342883; 12554
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the comprehensive land resource management plan for the Yuma Resource Management Area of Arizona and California is proposed. The 1.3-million-acre planning area extends northward from the Mexican border at San Luis, Arizona to north of Blythe, California and Ehrenberg, Arizona, including a narrow strip of land in Imperial and Riverside counties, California and a portion of La Paz County, Arizona. The area includes the city of Yuma, the towns of Quartzsite and Wellton, and a number of smaller communities. The area has been affected by population growth and changing demographics, increased and conflicting demands on the area's resources and resource uses, increased complexity of resource management issues, and increased off-highway vehicle use on public lands. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to special area designations, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation resources, transportation, wilderness values, and land use and realty considerations. Specific management provisions address land health standards, special area designations and management, coordinated management areas, vegetation, wildland fire, fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, livestock grazing, wild horse and burro herds, recreation management, travel management, visual resources, wilderness, cultural resources, paleontological resources, air and water quality, soils, land realty, mineral resources, public health and safety, best management practices, and environmental monitoring. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternatives would emphasize appropriate human use and influences On the wide array of uses. Alternative C would emphasize visitor opportunities to experience the natural and cultural values of the planning area. Alternative D would emphasize the preservation of natural and cultural resources by limiting public access and use and discontinuing livestock grazing. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for an optimal balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources within the planning area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would allow for management of the public lands and resources within the planning area for multiple uses and sustained yield to ensure that these lands and resources were utilized in a manner that would best meet the present and future needs of the public. 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 060501, Volume I--376 pages, Volume II--367 pages, Map Supplement, CD-ROM, December 4, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Yuma Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342883?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA+AND+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=YUMA+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA+AND+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GIACOMINI WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA/POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36342822; 12555
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a wetland restoration project within the Waldo Giacomini Ranch ad the Olema Marsh of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the Point Reyes National Seashore, Marin County, California is proposed. Since the early 1900s, levees placed at the southern end of Tomales Bay have served to disconnect the hydrologic regime that originally connected Lagunitas Creek and its tributaries from their floodplains. As a result, wetland conditions within the Waldo Giamomini Ranch and Olema marsh have been degraded. The hydrologic and ecological functionality of what was one of the largest integrated tidal marsh complexes in Tomales Bay has been substantially reduced. As a result, the ecology of the bay has suffered due to excessive sediment, water and sediment quality problems, and invasive nonnative species. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would result in the complete removal of the levees in both the East and West pastures. The plan would increase tidal channel creation and grade and revegetate large areas. The project boundary for this alternative would be expanded to include Olema Marsh south of Giacomini Ranch and White House Pool. Under Alternative C, an adaptive restoration approach would be taken with Olema Marsh that would include a phased approach to shallow channel excavation, vegetated berm removal, and potential replacement of Levee Road and Bear Valley Road culverts in the future should initial restoration efforts fail to achieve the desired degree of success. In addition to the abovementioned measures, the plan would include removal of agricultural infrastructure, channel alterations and new channel development, elimination of invasive plant species, installation of fencing, and revegetation of some areas. Public access would be provided via a southern perimeter path and proposed future trails. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would restore hydrologic and ecological processes and functions in a significant portion of the project area, improve the health of the entire Tomales Bay watershed, and provide recreational opportunities related to the restored wetlands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The plan would involve the conversion of a viable dairy farm at Giacomini ranch to parkland. Excavation and filling would extensively alter the site's topography. Hydrologic reconnection of the Giacomini Ranch to Lagunitas Creek would increase the potential for influxes of nutrient-laden waters from fluvial and tidal sources. Dewatering and increased tidal influence within Olema marsh would cause extensive dieback of existing freshwater marsh vegetation, eliminating the wildlife dependent on this type of habitat. Marsh restoration could have adverse impacts on the federally protected red-legged frog. The loss of levee length would reduce refugia for California black rail and California clapper rail, also federally protected species. removal of the levees would also increase vertical flood elevations in the West Pasture by as much a 1.6 feet during a 50-year flood event. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060502, 745 pages, December 4, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Estuaries
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Golden Gate National Recreation Area
KW  - Point Reyes National Seashore
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342822?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GIACOMINI+WETLAND+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2FPOINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GIACOMINI+WETLAND+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2FPOINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FOLSOM DAM SAFETY AND FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, SACRAMENTO, EL DORADO, AND PLACER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36348419; 12546
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to address hydrologic, seismic, static, and flood control issues at Folsom Dam and its appurtenant structures on the American River in Sacramento, El Dorado, and Placer counties, California is proposed. The Folsom Facility is comprised of the main dam on the mainstem of the American River to retain and release water contained with in the Folsom Reservoir, two wing dams flanking the main dam to contain water within the reservoir, the Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD) to retain water at the location of a historic river channel, and eight earthen dikes to contain water when the reservoir is at or near capacity. The proposed project, known as the Folsom Joint Federal Project, was designed to coordinate efforts by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation at the Folsom Facility. The limitations of the existing flood control system in the Sacramento area and the urgent need to increase the level of flood protection have received public attention in the aftermath of the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. It has been determined that the reservoir and the downstream levees do not have sufficient capacity to safely manage flows from floods with recurrence intervals of greater than 100 years. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The environmentally preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would provide for the construction of a gated spillway to address hydrologic dam safety and flood control concerns. Certain flood control enhancements could be added incrementally to the spillway as necessary. Potential flood control enhancements would include raising the embankment by as much as 3.5 feet and/or modification or replacement of existing service gates and emergency spillway gates. The flanking wing dams, the MAID, and the parapet walls of all eight dikes would be raised 3.5 feet as well, and the MAID and all dikes would be provided with toe drains to address seepage concerns. Three dikes and the MAID would be provided with full height filters to address seepage. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would help reduce the risk of flooding along the main stem of the American River, while meeting dam safety and public safety objectives. Proposed improvements would raise the level of protection to safeguard downstream property and the public against a 200-year flood event. More specifically, the project would reduce hydrologic risk of overtopping-related failure of any impoundment structure, reduce the risk of structural failure of any impoundment structure during an earthquake or during a potential static (seepage) event, and improve the flood management capacity of facilities in a manner consistent with current federal mandates. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project measures would increase turbidity and sedimentation in downstream reaches of the river, and local groundwater levels would be affected. Floodplain alterations and structural additions resulting from the project would displace wetlands, including vernal shrimp habitat, and potentially affect special status plant and animal habitat, including the habitat of the federally protected Elderberry Long-horn Beetle. Borrow site development would displace soil resources. Naturally occurring asbestos sites would be encountered by construction workers. Parapet walls and embankments would eliminate views of the lake for some residents and visitors. Construction activities would increase ambient noise levels significantly, violating federal standards at three sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would also displace cultural resources and result in a significant loss of recreational visitor days and the associated recreational revenues. Relocation of some business and residential properties would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 2004, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Flood Control Act of 1944, Folsom Dam Raise Authority (P.L. 108-137), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53)
JF  - EPA number: 060493, 897 pages; CD-ROM, November 22, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Borrow Pits
KW  - Dams
KW  - Dikes
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Safety
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - American River
KW  - California
KW  - Folsom Reservoir
KW  - Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 2004, Project Authorization
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Flood Control Act of 1944, Project Authorization
KW  - Folsom Dam Raise Authority, Project Authorization
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348419?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-11-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+DAM+SAFETY+AND+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+EL+DORADO%2C+AND+PLACER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+DAM+SAFETY+AND+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+EL+DORADO%2C+AND+PLACER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 22, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BLACK MESA PROJECT, MOJAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA.
AN  - 36342044; 12543
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the life-of-mine (LOM) operation and reclamation plans for the Kayenta and Black Mesa surface coal mining operations at the Black Mesa Complex by Peabody Western Coal Company and associated action are proposed. The associated actions would include approval of a coal-slurry preparation plant permit application, the granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generation Station in Laughlin, Nevada, and the granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for the construction of a water supply system and associated facilities to convey water from a well field in the Coconino aquifer near Leupp, Arizona for use at the Black Mesa Complex. The Kayenta mining operation has provided coal to the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona since 1973, and, from 1970 to December 2005, the Black Mesa operation provided coal to the Mohave Generating Station. Currently, Peabody is authorized to mine at the Kayenta mining operation through 2026 and to mine at the Black Mesa operation until such time that the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement makes a decision on the LOM permit that Peabody has submitted to the Office. Three alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A, the applicant's and federal authorities' preferred alternative, would involve the approval of the LOM revision and all associated components. Under Alternative, Peabody would incorporate into the permanent LOM permit currently unpermitted parts of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation lease areas and 2) obtain new rights-of-way and easements. The revisions would include, but not be limited to, construction of a coal-washing facility, an increase in coal production from the Black Mesa operation, and increased need for water for slurry and coal washing. Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. would reconstruct thee 273-mile coal-delivery slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa operation to the Mohave Generating Station; the pipeline has which has reached the end of its 35-year design life. Salt River Project, operated by Southern California Edison Company, would construct and operate a new water supply system, including a well field near Leupp and a 108-mile water supply pipeline to convey water from the Coconino aquifer to the Black Mesa Complex for use in coal slurry transport and other mining purposes; this water would be used to replace much of that water that has been taken from the Navajo aquifer for mining and coal transportation purposes. Alternative B would involve conditional approval of the Kayenta mining operation part of the LOM revision and disapproval of the Black Mesa mining operation of the LOM revision. Alternative C would result in the disapproval of the entire LOM revision. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the LOM program and associated permits and rights-of-way would allow Peabody to continue supplying coal to the two power plants receiving slurry from the mine complex via pipeline, thereby continuing the ability of the plants to supply electric power to regional industrial, municipal, commercial, and residential consumers. Annual mining royalties paid to the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe would amount to $37.9 million and $15.5 million, respectively. Arizona would receive $18.1 million in sales taxes annually. Expansion of the mining complex would increase mining employment rolls by 80 jobs. Road improvements related to the project would improve regional access for the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The upper 250 feet of surface material would be removed from more than 13,529 acres at the mine complex site. This would result in the loss of 8,500 acres of pinon/juniper woodland vegetation and 4,200 acres of sagebrush and the associated wildlife habitat. Construction of the slurry pipeline would disturb 2,100 acres, and the pipeline route would traverse 23 cultural resource sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 70 residences would be affected by pipeline construction due to access limitations or property losses. Installation of aquifer facilities would affect 55 residences and grazing operations. Drawdown of the aquifer due to withdrawals would affect surface water flows and wells, Aquifer drawdowns could affect the federally protected salt cedar and the Little Colorado spinedace. which would reduce the areas value as a grazing resource. Following mining, the topsoil would be replaced and vegetation restored. Site topography would change significantly following mining, and the visual aesthetic of the mining area an pipeline corridor would be severely degraded during mining and significantly altered after reclamation. Grazing activities would be eliminated until reclamation has been completed in mined areas. Mining would degrade and, in some areas, destroy aquifer resources, including numerous springs. Soil chemistry would be degraded. The LOM would require the displacement of 17 Navajo households. Final closure of the Black Mesa Complex would result in severe unemployment and other economic losses in the Kayenta area. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 1342), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 060490, 989 pages, November 22, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Coal
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Easements
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mines
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Reclamation Plans
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Soil Pollution
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Clean Air Act of 1970, Prevention of Significant Deterioration
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342044?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-11-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK+MESA+PROJECT%2C+MOJAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=BLACK+MESA+PROJECT%2C+MOJAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement, Denver, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 22, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ONEIDA NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, ONEIDA AND MADISON COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36343567; 12533
AB  - PURPOSE: The transfer of 17,370 acres of land in Oneida and Madison counties, New York currently owned by the Oneida Nation of New York (Nation) into federal trust status is proposed to allow for the siting of gaming and resort facilities, housing, health care facilities, government offices, commercial enterprises, farms, livestock rearing enterprises, and hunting and fishing areas. By virtue of the federal government holding the land in trust for a federally recognized Native American tribe, the tribe would be benefit from exemption of the lands ad conduct thereon from most New York state and local taxation and regulation; protection of the lands against alienation; the ability to exercise tribal sovereignty over the land, and the opportunity for the tribe to avail itself of federal laws that apply to lands head in trust status, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the transferred land would include 3,428 acres generally associated with the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, the Nation's tribal gaming operation, its associated lodging and restaurants, five golf courses, and related support facilities; 6,475 acres of land generally associated with the Nation's government, cultural, housing, health, commercial and educational facilities, as well as hunting and agricultural lands; and 7,467 acres of generally undeveloped lands, some of which is used for active and inactive farming. Overall, Alternative A would include all Nation government services, all 98 Nation member residences, the Turning Stone Resort and Casino, 13 SavOn gas stations and convenience stores, three marinas, and all other Nation enterprises, 12,824 acres of agricultural lands and related operations, 4,227 acres of hunting and fishing area, 3,106 acres of wetlands, and all cultural resources relevant to the Nation, including 157 identified archaeological sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land transfer and associated commercial and social developments would assist the Nation in achieving cultural and social preservation, expression and identity, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. More specifically, the action would ensure that a portion of adequate tribal land base and homeland was subject to tribal sovereignty and dedicated to a diversified and productive economic base, local government facilities, housing and economic and social needs of the Nation, protection of the Nation's historical and cultural resource values, and preservation of a homeland for Nation members located elsewhere in the U.S. One of the most significant positive socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action would be the injection of numerous jobs and revenues into the Nation's local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Nation's trust land would be interspersed with non-Nation land governed by local and state authorities, who have indicated that such an arrangement would render enforcement of zoning laws difficult; though local and state land use laws are currently consistent, future changes in either could make coordination of land use planning difficult. Property tax exemptions associated with the trust transfer would result in a significant loss in local government revenues; the Nation has paid $38.5 million in local taxes since 1995. Property taxes on Nation members' holdings would also be foregone by local governments. The influx of visitors to the resort, which would be likely to increase, could place stress on local public services. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 465).
JF  - EPA number: 060480, Executive Summary--101 pages, Draft EIS (Section 3)--665, Draft EIS (Sections 4-7)--334 pages, Appendices A-E--391 pages, Appendix F--602 pages, Appendices J-L--499 pages, CD-ROMS (3, November 16, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - New York
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343567?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ONEIDA+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+ONEIDA+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, CATOCTIN MOUNTAIN PARK, FREDERICK AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, MARYLAND.
AN  - 36346747; 12539
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan for the Catoctin Mountain Park in Frederick and Washington counties, Maryland is proposed. Due to an excessive deer population, the park has suffered declining forest regeneration and alteration of natural processes that support native vegetation, wildlife, and cultural landscapes. Excessive deer browsing has reduced forest regeneration, resulting in adverse alteration of the forest structure, composition, and wildlife habitat. Continuation of excessive browsing could adversely affect the natural distribution, abundance, ad diversity of native species, including species of special concern, and has already impacted native shrubs, trees, and forest systems that comprise the natural vegetation component of the Camp Misty Mount and Camp Greentop cultural landscapes. Furthermore, action is needed to foster greater cooperation with state and local government authorities currently implementing deer management actions to help achieve mutual deer management goals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing deer management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The existing regime involves limited fencing, use of repellents in landscaped areas, monitoring, data management, and research. Under Alternative B, several nonlethal actions, such as large-scale enclosure fencing, increased use of repellants in limited areas, and reproductive control of does, would be taken to protect forest seedlings, promote forest regeneration, and gradually reduce deer number in the park. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, direct reduction of the deer herd would be achieved by sharpshooting and by capture and euthanasia of individual deer in certain circumstances where sharpshooting would not be appropriate. Alternative D would combine elements from alternatives B and C and include sharpshooting, capture, and euthanasia as well as reproductive control of does. Costs of all lethal actions considered under the preferred alternative are estimated to range from $738,600 to $941,100. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would support forest regeneration and provide for long-term protection, conservation, and restoration of native species and cultural landscapes within the park and lands in the vicinity of the park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reproductive controls and the shooting of deer would disturb the sensibilities of some visitors where the proposed actions were visible or audible; reproductive controls would likely occur during high visitation periods, but sharpshooting activities could be conducted at night, removing the activity from the visitors' experience of the park. The program would place additional demands on local Park Service staff. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060486, 398 pages, November 14, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 06-XX
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Catoctin Mountain Park
KW  - Maryland
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346747?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CATOCTIN+MOUNTAIN+PARK%2C+FREDERICK+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CATOCTIN+MOUNTAIN+PARK%2C+FREDERICK+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Thurmont, Maryland; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 14, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SEQUOIA AND KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS AND MIDDLE AND SOUTH FORKS OF THE KINGS RIVER AND NORTH FORK OF THE KERN RIVER, TULARE AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36348133; 12521
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the management and use of Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks in Tulare and Fresno counties, California is proposed. The proposal also includes a comprehensive management plan for portions of the Middle and South Forks of the Kings River and the North Fork of the Kern River, which have been designated by Congress as components of the National Wild and Scenic River System. The overall plan would direct the management of the parks and the river segments for the next 10 to 15 years. The parks feature the largest giant sequoia trees and groves in the world, an extraordinary continuum of ecosystems arrayed along the greatest vertical relief of any protected area in the lower 48 states, the highest and most rugged portion of the high Sierra mountain range, magnificent glacially carved canyons, the largest area of contiguous designated wilderness in California, the largest preserved Sierran foothills ecosystem, a wide spectrum of prehistoric and historic sites, and almost 200 known marble caverns, many inhabited by cave wildlife found nowhere else. The existing management plan lacks, which was implemented in 1971, constitutes an outdated view of the parks. The plan lacks a comprehensive river management component, fails to cover historic sites discovered since 1971, includes facilities and other development proposals that my no longer be desirable, fails to address the changing context of parks in the regional ecosystem, and does not address the use of cabins being used after the expiration of the associated special use permits due to the death of permit holders. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would address parkwide user group needs, wild and scenic river corridors, backcountry recreation, the unique resources found in Cedar Grove and on the floor of Kings Canyon, the Grant Grove in Kings Canyon, the new developed area of Wuksachi, the Lodgepole area of Tokopah Canyon of the Marble Fork of the Kaweah River, Wolverton, Giant Forest, Crystal Cave, Ash Mountain and associated protected foothill areas, Mineral King Valley, and the Dillonwood sequoia grove, which was added to the Sequoia National Park in 2000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would accommodate sustainable growth and visitor enjoyment within the parks and adapt to changing user group needs, while protecting ecosystem diversity and preserving the basic character of the associated areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The establishment of an additional high Sierra camp in the Hockett Plateau backcountry, which is only a possibility, would result in minor degradation of the pristine natural setting of the area. Removal of certain hydroelectric facilities located within the parks would involve demolition of structures of historic significance. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625), Public Law 106-574, 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 04-0425D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060468, Volume 1--215 pages and maps, Volume 2--400 pages, Volume 3--352 pages, November 6, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Kings Canyon National Park
KW  - Kern River
KW  - Kings River
KW  - Sequoia National Park
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 106-574, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348133?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-11-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEQUOIA+AND+KINGS+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARKS+AND+MIDDLE+AND+SOUTH+FORKS+OF+THE+KINGS+RIVER+AND+NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+KERN+RIVER%2C+TULARE+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SEQUOIA+AND+KINGS+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARKS+AND+MIDDLE+AND+SOUTH+FORKS+OF+THE+KINGS+RIVER+AND+NORTH+FORK+OF+THE+KERN+RIVER%2C+TULARE+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Three Rivers, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 6, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ROCKIES EXPRESS WESTERN PHASE PROJECT, COLORADO, WYOMING, NEBRASKA, KANSAS, MISSOURI, AND NEW MEXICO (DOCKET NOS. CP06-354-000, CP06-401-000, CP06-423-000).
AN  - 36342577; 12331
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of three Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction of 796 miles of new pipeline and the installation of a total of 237,320 horsepower of new compression, to be collectively known as the Rockies Express Western Phase Project, in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Wyoming. The applicants are Rockies Express Pipeline LLC,, TransColorado Gas Transmission Company, and Questar Pipeline Company. Rockies Express would construct and operate pipeline, compression, and ancillary facilities in Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri to transport natural gas produced in the Rocky Mountain and San Juan basins for delivery to major markets in the Midwest and eastern United States through interconnections with existing interstate pipeline systems. Rockies Express is not proposing to supply gas to local distribution companies at this time. TransColorado would construct and operate both new and expanded compression facilities on a portion of its existing interstate natural gas pipeline system in New Mexico and Colorado. This project, the Blanco to Meeker Project, would provide for firm transportation of 250,000 dekatherms of natural gas per day from the Blanco Hub in New Mexico north along the TransColorado pipeline system to the Meeker Hub in Colorado. Overthrust would construct and operate new pipeline, compression, and ancillary facilities in Lincoln and Sweetwater counties, Wyoming; this project, the Wamsutter Expansion Project, would interconnect with the Entrega pipeline system near Wamsutter in Sweetwater County and transport natural gas to the Cheyenne Hub in Weld County, Colorado via the Entrega pipeline. The two largest aspects of the three interrelated proposals involve construction of 712.7 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline in Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri by Rockies Express and 77.2 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline in Sweetwater County, Wyoming by Overthrust. Other facilities include 5.3 miles of 24-inch diameter lateral pipeline in Sweetwater and Carbon counties, Wyoming, provision of nine new compressor stations and four new compressor units at existing stations, modification of three existing compressor stations, installation of 11 new meter stations, and construction of short sections of ancillary pipeline. Following completion the proposed facilities would transport up to 1.5 dekatherms, or approximately 1.5 billion cubic feet of gas per day. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, system alternatives, major route alternatives, route variations, and alternative aboveground facilities and sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Rockies Express Western Phase Project would provide natural gas transportation service from supply basins in the Rocky Mountains to demand-intensive markets in the Midwest. A portion of this natural gas supply could eventually be delivered to the eastern United States via existing or planned pipeline systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rockies Express project activities would disturb 7,068 acres of agricultural land, 4,111 acres of prairie grassland, 571 acres of deciduous forest, 83 acres of rangeland, and 63 acres of developed land. The Blanco to Meeker Project would disturb 8.5 acres of sagebrush grassland, 5.8 acres of sagebrush shrubland, and 1.7 acres of juniper woodland. The Wamsutter Expansion Project would disturb 413 acres of sagebrush steppe, 333 acres of desert shrubland, 221 acres of sagebrush scrub, 71 acres of greasewood, 64 acres of barren land, 43 acres of juniper, and 19 acres of salt desert. The pipelines would pass within 150 feet of 25 water wells and traverse 88 perennial water bodies, including 56 providing important fish habitat, as well as 511 intermittent water bodies, two ponds, and one ditch. Eight water bodies considered sensitive and 14 water bodies characterized by impaired water quality would be affected. Approximately 71 acres of emergent wetlands would be affected. Pipeline construction workers could encounter portions of the existing oil and gas facilities developments that exist in the vicinity of the expansion project corridors. One underground mine would be traversed. Approximately 100 miles of the pipeline facilities would traverse an area with a high potential for significant fossils. Habitat for 78 special status species would be affected, and several wildlife management areas would be traversed. Pipelines would pass within 50 feet of 26 residences. Cultural resource surveys along the proposed and alternative pipeline routes and within the ancillary facilities' sites have yet to be completed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)).
JF  - EPA number: 060465, 785 pages, November 3, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0203D
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Kansas
KW  - Missouri
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342577?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-11-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROCKIES+EXPRESS+WESTERN+PHASE+PROJECT%2C+COLORADO%2C+WYOMING%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+KANSAS%2C+MISSOURI%2C+AND+NEW+MEXICO+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP06-354-000%2C+CP06-401-000%2C+CP06-423-000%29.&rft.title=ROCKIES+EXPRESS+WESTERN+PHASE+PROJECT%2C+COLORADO%2C+WYOMING%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+KANSAS%2C+MISSOURI%2C+AND+NEW+MEXICO+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP06-354-000%2C+CP06-401-000%2C+CP06-423-000%29.&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 - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 3, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT ALTERNATIVE INTAKE PROJECT, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT ALTERNATIVE INTAKE PROJECT, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 756824367; 12322-060456_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an alternative drinking water intake structure for the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) in the central San Joaquin Delta, Contra Costa County, California are proposed. CCWD's million is to obtain water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and deliver treated and untreated water to approximately 500,000 people in central and eastern Contra Costa County. Water quality in the Delta at CCWD's existing intakes currently does not meet CCWD's water quality objectives for extended periods each year, requiring CCWD to use the higher-quality water stored in Los Vaqueros Reservoir to blend with the directly diverted Delta water to meet CCWD's quality objectives. The reservoir is used particularly to reduce salinity in the water taken from the Delta. However, even with the blending benefits of the reservoir, CCWD expects that water quality objectives will not be met during extended periods of high salinity in the Delta and expects these periods to occur more frequently in the future as statewide demands on the Delta increase. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 1) would provide for a new 250-cubic-foot-per-second (cfs) screened water intake and pump station located along the lower third of the Victoria Canal on Victoria Island in the central Delta where water quality is typically better than at CCWD's existing intakes. A buried pipeline would carry the water 12,000 to 14,000 feet from the new intake structure across Victoria Island and beneath Old River and tie into CCWD's existing Old River conveyance system on Byron Tract. The intake would involve adding a new point of diversion to certain existing water rights held by CCWD and by the Bureau of Reclamation. CCWD would not seek to increase its water rights, Central Valley Project contract amounts, or permitted Los Vaqueros Reservoir filling rates through the proposed action. The new intake would change the location, timing, and quality of some of CCWD's diversions, but would not increase the overall total diversion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve delivered water quality, particularly during drought periods, protect and improve health and/or aesthetic benefits to consumers, improve operational flexibility, and protect delivered water quality during emergencies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intake structure and pump station would displace six to eight acres of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance. Pipeline construction would destroy vegetation and disturb soils in the short-term, but these ecological values would be recovered after construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). and Public Law 108-361. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0445D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060456, Final EIS--201 pages (CD-ROM), Draft EIS--637 pages (CD-ROM), Draft EIS (Volume II)--712 pages, Draft EIS (Volume III)--366 pages, October 31, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 06-50
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
KW  - Los Vaqueros Reservoir
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 108-361, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824367?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONTRA+COSTA+WATER+DISTRICT+ALTERNATIVE+INTAKE+PROJECT%2C+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CONTRA+COSTA+WATER+DISTRICT+ALTERNATIVE+INTAKE+PROJECT%2C+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHERN ORANGE COUNTY SUBREGION NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN/MASTER STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT/HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36348848; 12321
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit and related federal actions for the construction and operation of a double-circuited 500-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line through Yuma County, Arizona and across the United States-Mexico international border are proposed. Analyses regarding power requirements show that additional power sources will be required in the southwestern U.S. and the contiguous areas of Mexico by 2009 at the latest to deal with power peak demands. The U.S. portion of the proposed project would lie within Yuma County, Arizona and interconnect with the Western Power Authority's (Western) regional power grid. The U.S. and Mexican applicants (respectively, North Branch Resources, LLC and Generadora del Disierto, S.A. de C.V. (GDD), both of which are wholly owned subsidiaries of North Branch Holding, LLC) would construct and operate a 500-kV line extending from the proposed San Luis Rio Colorado (SLRC) Power Center in Sonora, Mexico, interconnect with Western's existing Gila Substation, and continue to the Arizona Public Service Company's North Gila Substation. The project would require expansion of the Gila Substation and additional equipment at the North Gila Substation. The portion of the transmission line within the Yuma County would extend 25.7 miles, including 21 miles from the international border to the Gila Substation and 4.7 miles from the Gila Substation to the North Gila Substation. The line would traverse lands administered and/or owned by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of the Navy, the state of Arizona, and private individuals. In Mexico, GDD plans to construct ad operate the SLRC Power Center, a new 550-megawatt nominal (605-megawatt peaking) natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle power plant located approximately three miles east of San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora, Mexico, and approximately one mile south of the international border. While the SLRC Power Center is not is not subject to U.S. regulatory requirements, this EIS process considers impacts within the U.S. of the center's operations. An additional 500-kV line, extending approximately one mile, would extend from the SLRC Power Center to the proposed transmission components at the U.S.-Mexico border. In addition to the applicants' proposal, this draft EIS addresses a route alternative, a 230-kV line alternative, and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would transmit electricity into the Yuma Transmission Import Constraint Area, identified as a load pocket (area consuming electricity) within Arizona. The additional power would help rectify insufficient local generation problems affecting the area, which would be relieved of the need to rely on existing small, older, less efficient, and pollutant-generating power facilities in the Yuma area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the disturbance of 134.1 acres for transmission line structures and five acres for cable-pulling sites. Permanent land disturbance would displace 20 acres at the Gila Substation and 0.76 acres for proposed transmission line structures, which will lie along existing rights-of-way. Approximately 0.15 acres of habitat within a management area for the federally protected flat-tailed horned lizard would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Orders 10485 and 12038, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060455, 327 pages, October 31, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0395
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Executive Order 10485, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 12038, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348848?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+ORANGE+COUNTY+SUBREGION+NATURAL+COMMUNITY+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2FMASTER+STREAMBED+ALTERATION+AGREEMENT%2FHABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+ORANGE+COUNTY+SUBREGION+NATURAL+COMMUNITY+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2FMASTER+STREAMBED+ALTERATION+AGREEMENT%2FHABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 31, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT ALTERNATIVE INTAKE PROJECT, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36347847; 12322
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an alternative drinking water intake structure for the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) in the central San Joaquin Delta, Contra Costa County, California are proposed. CCWD's million is to obtain water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and deliver treated and untreated water to approximately 500,000 people in central and eastern Contra Costa County. Water quality in the Delta at CCWD's existing intakes currently does not meet CCWD's water quality objectives for extended periods each year, requiring CCWD to use the higher-quality water stored in Los Vaqueros Reservoir to blend with the directly diverted Delta water to meet CCWD's quality objectives. The reservoir is used particularly to reduce salinity in the water taken from the Delta. However, even with the blending benefits of the reservoir, CCWD expects that water quality objectives will not be met during extended periods of high salinity in the Delta and expects these periods to occur more frequently in the future as statewide demands on the Delta increase. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 1) would provide for a new 250-cubic-foot-per-second (cfs) screened water intake and pump station located along the lower third of the Victoria Canal on Victoria Island in the central Delta where water quality is typically better than at CCWD's existing intakes. A buried pipeline would carry the water 12,000 to 14,000 feet from the new intake structure across Victoria Island and beneath Old River and tie into CCWD's existing Old River conveyance system on Byron Tract. The intake would involve adding a new point of diversion to certain existing water rights held by CCWD and by the Bureau of Reclamation. CCWD would not seek to increase its water rights, Central Valley Project contract amounts, or permitted Los Vaqueros Reservoir filling rates through the proposed action. The new intake would change the location, timing, and quality of some of CCWD's diversions, but would not increase the overall total diversion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve delivered water quality, particularly during drought periods, protect and improve health and/or aesthetic benefits to consumers, improve operational flexibility, and protect delivered water quality during emergencies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intake structure and pump station would displace six to eight acres of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance. Pipeline construction would destroy vegetation and disturb soils in the short-term, but these ecological values would be recovered after construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). and Public Law 108-361. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0445D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060456, Final EIS--201 pages (CD-ROM), Draft EIS--637 pages (CD-ROM), Draft EIS (Volume II)--712 pages, Draft EIS (Volume III)--366 pages, October 31, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 06-50
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
KW  - Los Vaqueros Reservoir
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 108-361, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347847?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONTRA+COSTA+WATER+DISTRICT+ALTERNATIVE+INTAKE+PROJECT%2C+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CONTRA+COSTA+WATER+DISTRICT+ALTERNATIVE+INTAKE+PROJECT%2C+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA. [Part 5 of 10]
T2  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA.
AN  - 756824681; 12313-060447_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Grant Permit are proposed for the construction of a 500-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line extending from the Devers substation in North Palm Springs, California to the Harquahala substation near the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona. The 230-mile transmission line would follow the existing Southern California Edison Company's (SCE) 500-kV transmission line (Devers-Palo Verde No. 1 (DPV1)). The project would also include upgrades to an additional 50 miles of 230-kV transmission lines west of the Devers substation. Forty miles of 230-kV line from Devers to San Bernardino Junction at the western end of San Timoteo Canyon would be reconfigured and two separate 230-kV corridors, from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Mountain View substation and from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Vista substation, would be reconfigured. Ancillary facilities to be provided would include a substation 10 miles southwest of Blythe, California and adjacent to the DPV2 line; a new optical repeater facility three miles west of Blythe within the DPV2 rights-of-way, two series capacitor banks, each located adjacent to an existing DPV1 series capacitor bank; a dead-end structure, circuit breakers, and disconnect switches at the Harquahala and Devers switchyards; telecommunications systems for the operation and maintenance of the transmission lines; a 500-kV shunt line reactor bank and associated disconnect switches within Devers substation; and special protection scheme relays at Devers, Padua, and Vista substations in California and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Hassayampa, and Harquahala switchyards in Arizona. Though the transmission line alignment would largely follow an existing SCE easement, the line would traverse federal BLM land in both California and Arizona where additional rights-of-way might need to be acquired, resulting in the need for the abovementioned BLM permit. Moreover, Arizona state authorities must issue a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility for the project. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative, transmission routing alternatives, and location alternatives for ancillary facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new line would increase California's electric power import capability, thereby enhancing the competitive energy market and supporting the energy market in the Southwest U.S. and providing increased reliability, insurance value, and operating flexibility to the regional grids. Construction of the new facilities would employ 211 workers, while the upgrade component of the project would employ 174 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in temporary disturbance or permanent loss of sensitive desert vegetation communities and listed and sensitive plant and animal species. The new transmission line would traverse 85 perennial and intermittent streams, including the Colorado River at the Arizona border. The upgrade segment traverses 40 water bodies, most of which are intermittent. The additional transmission line within the DPV1 corridor would add to the risk of collision by raptors and other avian species and exacerbate the degradation of aesthetic, historic, archaeological, and other cultural and recreational values effected by the corridor facilities on the desert landscape. Numerous individual landowners, agricultural operations, business interests, and communities would be affected by the presence of the transmission line and substation facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0326D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060447, Environmental Analysis (Part 1)--578 pages and maps, Environmental Analysis (Part 2)--799 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--541 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (2, October 25, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: CA-660-06-32
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824681?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2017-03-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=29&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Australian+Journal+of+Psychology&rft.issn=00049530&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fajpy.12115
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, North Palm Springs, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 25, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 10]
T2  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA.
AN  - 756824661; 12313-060447_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Grant Permit are proposed for the construction of a 500-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line extending from the Devers substation in North Palm Springs, California to the Harquahala substation near the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona. The 230-mile transmission line would follow the existing Southern California Edison Company's (SCE) 500-kV transmission line (Devers-Palo Verde No. 1 (DPV1)). The project would also include upgrades to an additional 50 miles of 230-kV transmission lines west of the Devers substation. Forty miles of 230-kV line from Devers to San Bernardino Junction at the western end of San Timoteo Canyon would be reconfigured and two separate 230-kV corridors, from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Mountain View substation and from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Vista substation, would be reconfigured. Ancillary facilities to be provided would include a substation 10 miles southwest of Blythe, California and adjacent to the DPV2 line; a new optical repeater facility three miles west of Blythe within the DPV2 rights-of-way, two series capacitor banks, each located adjacent to an existing DPV1 series capacitor bank; a dead-end structure, circuit breakers, and disconnect switches at the Harquahala and Devers switchyards; telecommunications systems for the operation and maintenance of the transmission lines; a 500-kV shunt line reactor bank and associated disconnect switches within Devers substation; and special protection scheme relays at Devers, Padua, and Vista substations in California and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Hassayampa, and Harquahala switchyards in Arizona. Though the transmission line alignment would largely follow an existing SCE easement, the line would traverse federal BLM land in both California and Arizona where additional rights-of-way might need to be acquired, resulting in the need for the abovementioned BLM permit. Moreover, Arizona state authorities must issue a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility for the project. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative, transmission routing alternatives, and location alternatives for ancillary facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new line would increase California's electric power import capability, thereby enhancing the competitive energy market and supporting the energy market in the Southwest U.S. and providing increased reliability, insurance value, and operating flexibility to the regional grids. Construction of the new facilities would employ 211 workers, while the upgrade component of the project would employ 174 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in temporary disturbance or permanent loss of sensitive desert vegetation communities and listed and sensitive plant and animal species. The new transmission line would traverse 85 perennial and intermittent streams, including the Colorado River at the Arizona border. The upgrade segment traverses 40 water bodies, most of which are intermittent. The additional transmission line within the DPV1 corridor would add to the risk of collision by raptors and other avian species and exacerbate the degradation of aesthetic, historic, archaeological, and other cultural and recreational values effected by the corridor facilities on the desert landscape. Numerous individual landowners, agricultural operations, business interests, and communities would be affected by the presence of the transmission line and substation facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0326D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060447, Environmental Analysis (Part 1)--578 pages and maps, Environmental Analysis (Part 2)--799 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--541 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (2, October 25, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: CA-660-06-32
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824661?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2017-03-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=29&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Australian+Journal+of+Psychology&rft.issn=00049530&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fajpy.12115
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, North Palm Springs, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 25, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA. [Part 9 of 10]
T2  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA.
AN  - 756824633; 12313-060447_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Grant Permit are proposed for the construction of a 500-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line extending from the Devers substation in North Palm Springs, California to the Harquahala substation near the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona. The 230-mile transmission line would follow the existing Southern California Edison Company's (SCE) 500-kV transmission line (Devers-Palo Verde No. 1 (DPV1)). The project would also include upgrades to an additional 50 miles of 230-kV transmission lines west of the Devers substation. Forty miles of 230-kV line from Devers to San Bernardino Junction at the western end of San Timoteo Canyon would be reconfigured and two separate 230-kV corridors, from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Mountain View substation and from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Vista substation, would be reconfigured. Ancillary facilities to be provided would include a substation 10 miles southwest of Blythe, California and adjacent to the DPV2 line; a new optical repeater facility three miles west of Blythe within the DPV2 rights-of-way, two series capacitor banks, each located adjacent to an existing DPV1 series capacitor bank; a dead-end structure, circuit breakers, and disconnect switches at the Harquahala and Devers switchyards; telecommunications systems for the operation and maintenance of the transmission lines; a 500-kV shunt line reactor bank and associated disconnect switches within Devers substation; and special protection scheme relays at Devers, Padua, and Vista substations in California and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Hassayampa, and Harquahala switchyards in Arizona. Though the transmission line alignment would largely follow an existing SCE easement, the line would traverse federal BLM land in both California and Arizona where additional rights-of-way might need to be acquired, resulting in the need for the abovementioned BLM permit. Moreover, Arizona state authorities must issue a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility for the project. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative, transmission routing alternatives, and location alternatives for ancillary facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new line would increase California's electric power import capability, thereby enhancing the competitive energy market and supporting the energy market in the Southwest U.S. and providing increased reliability, insurance value, and operating flexibility to the regional grids. Construction of the new facilities would employ 211 workers, while the upgrade component of the project would employ 174 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in temporary disturbance or permanent loss of sensitive desert vegetation communities and listed and sensitive plant and animal species. The new transmission line would traverse 85 perennial and intermittent streams, including the Colorado River at the Arizona border. The upgrade segment traverses 40 water bodies, most of which are intermittent. The additional transmission line within the DPV1 corridor would add to the risk of collision by raptors and other avian species and exacerbate the degradation of aesthetic, historic, archaeological, and other cultural and recreational values effected by the corridor facilities on the desert landscape. Numerous individual landowners, agricultural operations, business interests, and communities would be affected by the presence of the transmission line and substation facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0326D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060447, Environmental Analysis (Part 1)--578 pages and maps, Environmental Analysis (Part 2)--799 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--541 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (2, October 25, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 9
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: CA-660-06-32
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824633?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVERS-PALO+VERDE+NO.+2+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+PALO+VERDE%2C+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.title=DEVERS-PALO+VERDE+NO.+2+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+PALO+VERDE%2C+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, North Palm Springs, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 25, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA. [Part 8 of 10]
T2  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA.
AN  - 756824629; 12313-060447_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Grant Permit are proposed for the construction of a 500-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line extending from the Devers substation in North Palm Springs, California to the Harquahala substation near the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona. The 230-mile transmission line would follow the existing Southern California Edison Company's (SCE) 500-kV transmission line (Devers-Palo Verde No. 1 (DPV1)). The project would also include upgrades to an additional 50 miles of 230-kV transmission lines west of the Devers substation. Forty miles of 230-kV line from Devers to San Bernardino Junction at the western end of San Timoteo Canyon would be reconfigured and two separate 230-kV corridors, from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Mountain View substation and from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Vista substation, would be reconfigured. Ancillary facilities to be provided would include a substation 10 miles southwest of Blythe, California and adjacent to the DPV2 line; a new optical repeater facility three miles west of Blythe within the DPV2 rights-of-way, two series capacitor banks, each located adjacent to an existing DPV1 series capacitor bank; a dead-end structure, circuit breakers, and disconnect switches at the Harquahala and Devers switchyards; telecommunications systems for the operation and maintenance of the transmission lines; a 500-kV shunt line reactor bank and associated disconnect switches within Devers substation; and special protection scheme relays at Devers, Padua, and Vista substations in California and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Hassayampa, and Harquahala switchyards in Arizona. Though the transmission line alignment would largely follow an existing SCE easement, the line would traverse federal BLM land in both California and Arizona where additional rights-of-way might need to be acquired, resulting in the need for the abovementioned BLM permit. Moreover, Arizona state authorities must issue a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility for the project. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative, transmission routing alternatives, and location alternatives for ancillary facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new line would increase California's electric power import capability, thereby enhancing the competitive energy market and supporting the energy market in the Southwest U.S. and providing increased reliability, insurance value, and operating flexibility to the regional grids. Construction of the new facilities would employ 211 workers, while the upgrade component of the project would employ 174 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in temporary disturbance or permanent loss of sensitive desert vegetation communities and listed and sensitive plant and animal species. The new transmission line would traverse 85 perennial and intermittent streams, including the Colorado River at the Arizona border. The upgrade segment traverses 40 water bodies, most of which are intermittent. The additional transmission line within the DPV1 corridor would add to the risk of collision by raptors and other avian species and exacerbate the degradation of aesthetic, historic, archaeological, and other cultural and recreational values effected by the corridor facilities on the desert landscape. Numerous individual landowners, agricultural operations, business interests, and communities would be affected by the presence of the transmission line and substation facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0326D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060447, Environmental Analysis (Part 1)--578 pages and maps, Environmental Analysis (Part 2)--799 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--541 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (2, October 25, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 8
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: CA-660-06-32
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824629?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVERS-PALO+VERDE+NO.+2+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+PALO+VERDE%2C+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.title=DEVERS-PALO+VERDE+NO.+2+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+PALO+VERDE%2C+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, North Palm Springs, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 25, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA. [Part 10 of 10]
T2  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA.
AN  - 756824616; 12313-060447_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Grant Permit are proposed for the construction of a 500-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line extending from the Devers substation in North Palm Springs, California to the Harquahala substation near the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona. The 230-mile transmission line would follow the existing Southern California Edison Company's (SCE) 500-kV transmission line (Devers-Palo Verde No. 1 (DPV1)). The project would also include upgrades to an additional 50 miles of 230-kV transmission lines west of the Devers substation. Forty miles of 230-kV line from Devers to San Bernardino Junction at the western end of San Timoteo Canyon would be reconfigured and two separate 230-kV corridors, from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Mountain View substation and from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Vista substation, would be reconfigured. Ancillary facilities to be provided would include a substation 10 miles southwest of Blythe, California and adjacent to the DPV2 line; a new optical repeater facility three miles west of Blythe within the DPV2 rights-of-way, two series capacitor banks, each located adjacent to an existing DPV1 series capacitor bank; a dead-end structure, circuit breakers, and disconnect switches at the Harquahala and Devers switchyards; telecommunications systems for the operation and maintenance of the transmission lines; a 500-kV shunt line reactor bank and associated disconnect switches within Devers substation; and special protection scheme relays at Devers, Padua, and Vista substations in California and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Hassayampa, and Harquahala switchyards in Arizona. Though the transmission line alignment would largely follow an existing SCE easement, the line would traverse federal BLM land in both California and Arizona where additional rights-of-way might need to be acquired, resulting in the need for the abovementioned BLM permit. Moreover, Arizona state authorities must issue a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility for the project. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative, transmission routing alternatives, and location alternatives for ancillary facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new line would increase California's electric power import capability, thereby enhancing the competitive energy market and supporting the energy market in the Southwest U.S. and providing increased reliability, insurance value, and operating flexibility to the regional grids. Construction of the new facilities would employ 211 workers, while the upgrade component of the project would employ 174 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in temporary disturbance or permanent loss of sensitive desert vegetation communities and listed and sensitive plant and animal species. The new transmission line would traverse 85 perennial and intermittent streams, including the Colorado River at the Arizona border. The upgrade segment traverses 40 water bodies, most of which are intermittent. The additional transmission line within the DPV1 corridor would add to the risk of collision by raptors and other avian species and exacerbate the degradation of aesthetic, historic, archaeological, and other cultural and recreational values effected by the corridor facilities on the desert landscape. Numerous individual landowners, agricultural operations, business interests, and communities would be affected by the presence of the transmission line and substation facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0326D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060447, Environmental Analysis (Part 1)--578 pages and maps, Environmental Analysis (Part 2)--799 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--541 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (2, October 25, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 10
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: CA-660-06-32
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824616?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVERS-PALO+VERDE+NO.+2+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+PALO+VERDE%2C+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.title=DEVERS-PALO+VERDE+NO.+2+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+PALO+VERDE%2C+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, North Palm Springs, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 25, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA. [Part 7 of 10]
T2  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA.
AN  - 756824612; 12313-060447_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Grant Permit are proposed for the construction of a 500-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line extending from the Devers substation in North Palm Springs, California to the Harquahala substation near the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona. The 230-mile transmission line would follow the existing Southern California Edison Company's (SCE) 500-kV transmission line (Devers-Palo Verde No. 1 (DPV1)). The project would also include upgrades to an additional 50 miles of 230-kV transmission lines west of the Devers substation. Forty miles of 230-kV line from Devers to San Bernardino Junction at the western end of San Timoteo Canyon would be reconfigured and two separate 230-kV corridors, from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Mountain View substation and from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Vista substation, would be reconfigured. Ancillary facilities to be provided would include a substation 10 miles southwest of Blythe, California and adjacent to the DPV2 line; a new optical repeater facility three miles west of Blythe within the DPV2 rights-of-way, two series capacitor banks, each located adjacent to an existing DPV1 series capacitor bank; a dead-end structure, circuit breakers, and disconnect switches at the Harquahala and Devers switchyards; telecommunications systems for the operation and maintenance of the transmission lines; a 500-kV shunt line reactor bank and associated disconnect switches within Devers substation; and special protection scheme relays at Devers, Padua, and Vista substations in California and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Hassayampa, and Harquahala switchyards in Arizona. Though the transmission line alignment would largely follow an existing SCE easement, the line would traverse federal BLM land in both California and Arizona where additional rights-of-way might need to be acquired, resulting in the need for the abovementioned BLM permit. Moreover, Arizona state authorities must issue a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility for the project. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative, transmission routing alternatives, and location alternatives for ancillary facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new line would increase California's electric power import capability, thereby enhancing the competitive energy market and supporting the energy market in the Southwest U.S. and providing increased reliability, insurance value, and operating flexibility to the regional grids. Construction of the new facilities would employ 211 workers, while the upgrade component of the project would employ 174 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in temporary disturbance or permanent loss of sensitive desert vegetation communities and listed and sensitive plant and animal species. The new transmission line would traverse 85 perennial and intermittent streams, including the Colorado River at the Arizona border. The upgrade segment traverses 40 water bodies, most of which are intermittent. The additional transmission line within the DPV1 corridor would add to the risk of collision by raptors and other avian species and exacerbate the degradation of aesthetic, historic, archaeological, and other cultural and recreational values effected by the corridor facilities on the desert landscape. Numerous individual landowners, agricultural operations, business interests, and communities would be affected by the presence of the transmission line and substation facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0326D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060447, Environmental Analysis (Part 1)--578 pages and maps, Environmental Analysis (Part 2)--799 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--541 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (2, October 25, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 7
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: CA-660-06-32
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824612?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVERS-PALO+VERDE+NO.+2+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+PALO+VERDE%2C+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.title=DEVERS-PALO+VERDE+NO.+2+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+PALO+VERDE%2C+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, North Palm Springs, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 25, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA. [Part 6 of 10]
T2  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA.
AN  - 756824611; 12313-060447_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Grant Permit are proposed for the construction of a 500-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line extending from the Devers substation in North Palm Springs, California to the Harquahala substation near the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona. The 230-mile transmission line would follow the existing Southern California Edison Company's (SCE) 500-kV transmission line (Devers-Palo Verde No. 1 (DPV1)). The project would also include upgrades to an additional 50 miles of 230-kV transmission lines west of the Devers substation. Forty miles of 230-kV line from Devers to San Bernardino Junction at the western end of San Timoteo Canyon would be reconfigured and two separate 230-kV corridors, from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Mountain View substation and from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Vista substation, would be reconfigured. Ancillary facilities to be provided would include a substation 10 miles southwest of Blythe, California and adjacent to the DPV2 line; a new optical repeater facility three miles west of Blythe within the DPV2 rights-of-way, two series capacitor banks, each located adjacent to an existing DPV1 series capacitor bank; a dead-end structure, circuit breakers, and disconnect switches at the Harquahala and Devers switchyards; telecommunications systems for the operation and maintenance of the transmission lines; a 500-kV shunt line reactor bank and associated disconnect switches within Devers substation; and special protection scheme relays at Devers, Padua, and Vista substations in California and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Hassayampa, and Harquahala switchyards in Arizona. Though the transmission line alignment would largely follow an existing SCE easement, the line would traverse federal BLM land in both California and Arizona where additional rights-of-way might need to be acquired, resulting in the need for the abovementioned BLM permit. Moreover, Arizona state authorities must issue a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility for the project. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative, transmission routing alternatives, and location alternatives for ancillary facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new line would increase California's electric power import capability, thereby enhancing the competitive energy market and supporting the energy market in the Southwest U.S. and providing increased reliability, insurance value, and operating flexibility to the regional grids. Construction of the new facilities would employ 211 workers, while the upgrade component of the project would employ 174 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in temporary disturbance or permanent loss of sensitive desert vegetation communities and listed and sensitive plant and animal species. The new transmission line would traverse 85 perennial and intermittent streams, including the Colorado River at the Arizona border. The upgrade segment traverses 40 water bodies, most of which are intermittent. The additional transmission line within the DPV1 corridor would add to the risk of collision by raptors and other avian species and exacerbate the degradation of aesthetic, historic, archaeological, and other cultural and recreational values effected by the corridor facilities on the desert landscape. Numerous individual landowners, agricultural operations, business interests, and communities would be affected by the presence of the transmission line and substation facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0326D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060447, Environmental Analysis (Part 1)--578 pages and maps, Environmental Analysis (Part 2)--799 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--541 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (2, October 25, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: CA-660-06-32
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824611?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVERS-PALO+VERDE+NO.+2+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+PALO+VERDE%2C+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.title=DEVERS-PALO+VERDE+NO.+2+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+PALO+VERDE%2C+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, North Palm Springs, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 25, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA. [Part 4 of 10]
T2  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA.
AN  - 756824596; 12313-060447_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Grant Permit are proposed for the construction of a 500-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line extending from the Devers substation in North Palm Springs, California to the Harquahala substation near the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona. The 230-mile transmission line would follow the existing Southern California Edison Company's (SCE) 500-kV transmission line (Devers-Palo Verde No. 1 (DPV1)). The project would also include upgrades to an additional 50 miles of 230-kV transmission lines west of the Devers substation. Forty miles of 230-kV line from Devers to San Bernardino Junction at the western end of San Timoteo Canyon would be reconfigured and two separate 230-kV corridors, from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Mountain View substation and from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Vista substation, would be reconfigured. Ancillary facilities to be provided would include a substation 10 miles southwest of Blythe, California and adjacent to the DPV2 line; a new optical repeater facility three miles west of Blythe within the DPV2 rights-of-way, two series capacitor banks, each located adjacent to an existing DPV1 series capacitor bank; a dead-end structure, circuit breakers, and disconnect switches at the Harquahala and Devers switchyards; telecommunications systems for the operation and maintenance of the transmission lines; a 500-kV shunt line reactor bank and associated disconnect switches within Devers substation; and special protection scheme relays at Devers, Padua, and Vista substations in California and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Hassayampa, and Harquahala switchyards in Arizona. Though the transmission line alignment would largely follow an existing SCE easement, the line would traverse federal BLM land in both California and Arizona where additional rights-of-way might need to be acquired, resulting in the need for the abovementioned BLM permit. Moreover, Arizona state authorities must issue a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility for the project. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative, transmission routing alternatives, and location alternatives for ancillary facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new line would increase California's electric power import capability, thereby enhancing the competitive energy market and supporting the energy market in the Southwest U.S. and providing increased reliability, insurance value, and operating flexibility to the regional grids. Construction of the new facilities would employ 211 workers, while the upgrade component of the project would employ 174 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in temporary disturbance or permanent loss of sensitive desert vegetation communities and listed and sensitive plant and animal species. The new transmission line would traverse 85 perennial and intermittent streams, including the Colorado River at the Arizona border. The upgrade segment traverses 40 water bodies, most of which are intermittent. The additional transmission line within the DPV1 corridor would add to the risk of collision by raptors and other avian species and exacerbate the degradation of aesthetic, historic, archaeological, and other cultural and recreational values effected by the corridor facilities on the desert landscape. Numerous individual landowners, agricultural operations, business interests, and communities would be affected by the presence of the transmission line and substation facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0326D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060447, Environmental Analysis (Part 1)--578 pages and maps, Environmental Analysis (Part 2)--799 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--541 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (2, October 25, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: CA-660-06-32
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824596?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVERS-PALO+VERDE+NO.+2+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+PALO+VERDE%2C+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.title=DEVERS-PALO+VERDE+NO.+2+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+PALO+VERDE%2C+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, North Palm Springs, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 25, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA. [Part 3 of 10]
T2  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA.
AN  - 756824593; 12313-060447_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Grant Permit are proposed for the construction of a 500-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line extending from the Devers substation in North Palm Springs, California to the Harquahala substation near the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona. The 230-mile transmission line would follow the existing Southern California Edison Company's (SCE) 500-kV transmission line (Devers-Palo Verde No. 1 (DPV1)). The project would also include upgrades to an additional 50 miles of 230-kV transmission lines west of the Devers substation. Forty miles of 230-kV line from Devers to San Bernardino Junction at the western end of San Timoteo Canyon would be reconfigured and two separate 230-kV corridors, from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Mountain View substation and from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Vista substation, would be reconfigured. Ancillary facilities to be provided would include a substation 10 miles southwest of Blythe, California and adjacent to the DPV2 line; a new optical repeater facility three miles west of Blythe within the DPV2 rights-of-way, two series capacitor banks, each located adjacent to an existing DPV1 series capacitor bank; a dead-end structure, circuit breakers, and disconnect switches at the Harquahala and Devers switchyards; telecommunications systems for the operation and maintenance of the transmission lines; a 500-kV shunt line reactor bank and associated disconnect switches within Devers substation; and special protection scheme relays at Devers, Padua, and Vista substations in California and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Hassayampa, and Harquahala switchyards in Arizona. Though the transmission line alignment would largely follow an existing SCE easement, the line would traverse federal BLM land in both California and Arizona where additional rights-of-way might need to be acquired, resulting in the need for the abovementioned BLM permit. Moreover, Arizona state authorities must issue a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility for the project. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative, transmission routing alternatives, and location alternatives for ancillary facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new line would increase California's electric power import capability, thereby enhancing the competitive energy market and supporting the energy market in the Southwest U.S. and providing increased reliability, insurance value, and operating flexibility to the regional grids. Construction of the new facilities would employ 211 workers, while the upgrade component of the project would employ 174 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in temporary disturbance or permanent loss of sensitive desert vegetation communities and listed and sensitive plant and animal species. The new transmission line would traverse 85 perennial and intermittent streams, including the Colorado River at the Arizona border. The upgrade segment traverses 40 water bodies, most of which are intermittent. The additional transmission line within the DPV1 corridor would add to the risk of collision by raptors and other avian species and exacerbate the degradation of aesthetic, historic, archaeological, and other cultural and recreational values effected by the corridor facilities on the desert landscape. Numerous individual landowners, agricultural operations, business interests, and communities would be affected by the presence of the transmission line and substation facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0326D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060447, Environmental Analysis (Part 1)--578 pages and maps, Environmental Analysis (Part 2)--799 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--541 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (2, October 25, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: CA-660-06-32
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824593?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVERS-PALO+VERDE+NO.+2+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+PALO+VERDE%2C+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.title=DEVERS-PALO+VERDE+NO.+2+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+PALO+VERDE%2C+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, North Palm Springs, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 25, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA. [Part 2 of 10]
T2  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA.
AN  - 756824581; 12313-060447_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Grant Permit are proposed for the construction of a 500-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line extending from the Devers substation in North Palm Springs, California to the Harquahala substation near the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona. The 230-mile transmission line would follow the existing Southern California Edison Company's (SCE) 500-kV transmission line (Devers-Palo Verde No. 1 (DPV1)). The project would also include upgrades to an additional 50 miles of 230-kV transmission lines west of the Devers substation. Forty miles of 230-kV line from Devers to San Bernardino Junction at the western end of San Timoteo Canyon would be reconfigured and two separate 230-kV corridors, from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Mountain View substation and from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Vista substation, would be reconfigured. Ancillary facilities to be provided would include a substation 10 miles southwest of Blythe, California and adjacent to the DPV2 line; a new optical repeater facility three miles west of Blythe within the DPV2 rights-of-way, two series capacitor banks, each located adjacent to an existing DPV1 series capacitor bank; a dead-end structure, circuit breakers, and disconnect switches at the Harquahala and Devers switchyards; telecommunications systems for the operation and maintenance of the transmission lines; a 500-kV shunt line reactor bank and associated disconnect switches within Devers substation; and special protection scheme relays at Devers, Padua, and Vista substations in California and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Hassayampa, and Harquahala switchyards in Arizona. Though the transmission line alignment would largely follow an existing SCE easement, the line would traverse federal BLM land in both California and Arizona where additional rights-of-way might need to be acquired, resulting in the need for the abovementioned BLM permit. Moreover, Arizona state authorities must issue a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility for the project. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative, transmission routing alternatives, and location alternatives for ancillary facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new line would increase California's electric power import capability, thereby enhancing the competitive energy market and supporting the energy market in the Southwest U.S. and providing increased reliability, insurance value, and operating flexibility to the regional grids. Construction of the new facilities would employ 211 workers, while the upgrade component of the project would employ 174 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in temporary disturbance or permanent loss of sensitive desert vegetation communities and listed and sensitive plant and animal species. The new transmission line would traverse 85 perennial and intermittent streams, including the Colorado River at the Arizona border. The upgrade segment traverses 40 water bodies, most of which are intermittent. The additional transmission line within the DPV1 corridor would add to the risk of collision by raptors and other avian species and exacerbate the degradation of aesthetic, historic, archaeological, and other cultural and recreational values effected by the corridor facilities on the desert landscape. Numerous individual landowners, agricultural operations, business interests, and communities would be affected by the presence of the transmission line and substation facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0326D, Volume 30, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060447, Environmental Analysis (Part 1)--578 pages and maps, Environmental Analysis (Part 2)--799 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--541 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (2, October 25, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: CA-660-06-32
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824581?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVERS-PALO+VERDE+NO.+2+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+PALO+VERDE%2C+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.title=DEVERS-PALO+VERDE+NO.+2+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+PALO+VERDE%2C+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, North Palm Springs, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 25, 2006
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.
AN  - 36342680; 12311
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 t commerce along the route. Historically the BNSF-constructed snow sheds in this area are the sole protection provided to trains using the route. Eight of the original nine snow sheds 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 snow sheds, visitor safety and experience under a plan adopting explosives, scenic resource impacts, and socioeconomics. This draft EIS addresses four explosive and non-explosive avalanche reduction alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue current avalanche conditions. Alternative B, the preferred Alternative, would involve the construction by BNSF of snow sheds covering tracks to protect trains against avalanches. Five new snow sheds, 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 snow sheds. Seven existing snow sheds 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 snow shed 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 snow sheds. 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 snow sheds. 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: Snow shed 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 snow sheds were built. Snow shed work would degrade the historic value of the existing snow sheds. 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 060445, 458 pages, October 25, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 06-47
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/36342680?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AVALANCHE+HAZARD+REDUCTION+BY+BURLINGTON+NORTHERN+SANTA+FE+RAILWAY+IN+GLACIER+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+FLATHEAD+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=AVALANCHE+HAZARD+REDUCTION+BY+BURLINGTON+NORTHERN+SANTA+FE+RAILWAY+IN+GLACIER+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+FLATHEAD+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+MONTANA.&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 - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 25, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COEUR D'ALENE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, IDAHO. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - COEUR D'ALENE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, IDAHO.
AN  - 756824815; 12308-060442_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the resource management plan for the land and resources administered by the Coeur d'Alene Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of Benewah, Bonner, Boundary, Kootenai, and Shoshone counties of northern Idaho is proposed. The planning area, which encompasses 5.1 million acres within which the BLM administers 96,770 acres, is bordered on the west by the Washington state line, on the north by the Canadian border, on the east by the Montana state line, and on the south by Latah and Clearwater counties. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to opportunities for motorized and non-motorized recreation; protection of resources wile providing forest products and restoring forest health; protection of people and property from wildfire; adjustment of land ownership; control of invasive plant species and noxious weeds; and restoration of healthy watersheds and riparian habitat. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize commodity production and utility corridor development. Alternative C would implement minimal active management prescriptions, emphasizing preservation of natural and cultural resources. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would attempt to balance management planning issues, including commodity and non-commodity goals, to achieve statutory requirements and policy goals. Key components of Alternative D would include management of motorized recreation through closure of an additional 469 acres, primarily within areas affected by hazardous materials sites, and limiting travel within the remaining 99.7 percent of BLM lands to designated roads and trails; management of forest vegetation focusing on areas where natural disturbance has occurred, yielding a probable sale of 4.4 million board-feet per year; incorporation of conservation measures from statewide BLM planning documents for federally protected plant and animal species; creation of three new areas of critical environmental concern/research natural areas (357 additional acres); recommendation that four eligible stream segments be included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; deferral of wild and scenic status for the remaining eligible stream segment until the Idaho national Panhandle National Forests makes a determination for adjacent segments; emphasizing land ownership adjustments that promote retention and acquisition of lands with both commodity and non-commodity resource values and lands that increase public access, provide recreational values, or consolidate federal holdings; management of wildland fire to protect people, property, and both commodity and non=-commodity resources; use of fire for resource benefits within all areas outside the wildland-urban interface; and protection of fish and riparian habitat and watersheds through the provisions of the Coeur d'Alene Native Fish Strategy. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would respond to changing ecological, socioeconomic, institutional, and regulatory conditions that have occurred since the approval of the Emerald Empire Management Framework Plan of 1981 and the various amendments and decisions that have been approved since plan approval. The revised pan would provide a single, comprehensive land use plan that would guide management of public lands and interests administered by the BLM field office. The plan would provide objectives, land use allocations, and management direction to maintain, improve, or restore resource conditions and to provide for the economic needs of local communities over the long-term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of mineral resources would result in the disturbance of land and cultural resource sites and geological structures and degrade visual aesthetics. Unauthorized off-road vehicle travel would scar lands and damage vegetation and could destroy surface cultural and paleontological resources. Vegetation treatments could cause displacement of wildlife, decreases in forage availability and quality. Changes in recreational patterns could cause damage to natural and cultural resources and give rise to conflicts between users. Restriction of recreationists, livestock operators, and other users of area resources could lessen the availability and usefulness of resources for beneficial exploitation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and errata to the draft EIS, see 06-0113D, Volume 30, Number 1 and 06-0217D, Volume 30, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 060442, Volume I--498 pages, Volume II--401 pages, October 20, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: ID-410-2005-EIS-1059
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Coeur d'Alene Resource Management Area
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824815?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COEUR+D%27ALENE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=COEUR+D%27ALENE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 20, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COEUR D'ALENE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, IDAHO. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - COEUR D'ALENE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, IDAHO.
AN  - 756824781; 12308-060442_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the resource management plan for the land and resources administered by the Coeur d'Alene Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of Benewah, Bonner, Boundary, Kootenai, and Shoshone counties of northern Idaho is proposed. The planning area, which encompasses 5.1 million acres within which the BLM administers 96,770 acres, is bordered on the west by the Washington state line, on the north by the Canadian border, on the east by the Montana state line, and on the south by Latah and Clearwater counties. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to opportunities for motorized and non-motorized recreation; protection of resources wile providing forest products and restoring forest health; protection of people and property from wildfire; adjustment of land ownership; control of invasive plant species and noxious weeds; and restoration of healthy watersheds and riparian habitat. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize commodity production and utility corridor development. Alternative C would implement minimal active management prescriptions, emphasizing preservation of natural and cultural resources. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would attempt to balance management planning issues, including commodity and non-commodity goals, to achieve statutory requirements and policy goals. Key components of Alternative D would include management of motorized recreation through closure of an additional 469 acres, primarily within areas affected by hazardous materials sites, and limiting travel within the remaining 99.7 percent of BLM lands to designated roads and trails; management of forest vegetation focusing on areas where natural disturbance has occurred, yielding a probable sale of 4.4 million board-feet per year; incorporation of conservation measures from statewide BLM planning documents for federally protected plant and animal species; creation of three new areas of critical environmental concern/research natural areas (357 additional acres); recommendation that four eligible stream segments be included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; deferral of wild and scenic status for the remaining eligible stream segment until the Idaho national Panhandle National Forests makes a determination for adjacent segments; emphasizing land ownership adjustments that promote retention and acquisition of lands with both commodity and non-commodity resource values and lands that increase public access, provide recreational values, or consolidate federal holdings; management of wildland fire to protect people, property, and both commodity and non=-commodity resources; use of fire for resource benefits within all areas outside the wildland-urban interface; and protection of fish and riparian habitat and watersheds through the provisions of the Coeur d'Alene Native Fish Strategy. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would respond to changing ecological, socioeconomic, institutional, and regulatory conditions that have occurred since the approval of the Emerald Empire Management Framework Plan of 1981 and the various amendments and decisions that have been approved since plan approval. The revised pan would provide a single, comprehensive land use plan that would guide management of public lands and interests administered by the BLM field office. The plan would provide objectives, land use allocations, and management direction to maintain, improve, or restore resource conditions and to provide for the economic needs of local communities over the long-term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of mineral resources would result in the disturbance of land and cultural resource sites and geological structures and degrade visual aesthetics. Unauthorized off-road vehicle travel would scar lands and damage vegetation and could destroy surface cultural and paleontological resources. Vegetation treatments could cause displacement of wildlife, decreases in forage availability and quality. Changes in recreational patterns could cause damage to natural and cultural resources and give rise to conflicts between users. Restriction of recreationists, livestock operators, and other users of area resources could lessen the availability and usefulness of resources for beneficial exploitation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and errata to the draft EIS, see 06-0113D, Volume 30, Number 1 and 06-0217D, Volume 30, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 060442, Volume I--498 pages, Volume II--401 pages, October 20, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: ID-410-2005-EIS-1059
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Coeur d'Alene Resource Management Area
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824781?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COEUR+D%27ALENE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=COEUR+D%27ALENE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 20, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COEUR D'ALENE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, IDAHO.
AN  - 36343701; 12308
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the resource management plan for the land and resources administered by the Coeur d'Alene Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of Benewah, Bonner, Boundary, Kootenai, and Shoshone counties of northern Idaho is proposed. The planning area, which encompasses 5.1 million acres within which the BLM administers 96,770 acres, is bordered on the west by the Washington state line, on the north by the Canadian border, on the east by the Montana state line, and on the south by Latah and Clearwater counties. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to opportunities for motorized and non-motorized recreation; protection of resources wile providing forest products and restoring forest health; protection of people and property from wildfire; adjustment of land ownership; control of invasive plant species and noxious weeds; and restoration of healthy watersheds and riparian habitat. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize commodity production and utility corridor development. Alternative C would implement minimal active management prescriptions, emphasizing preservation of natural and cultural resources. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would attempt to balance management planning issues, including commodity and non-commodity goals, to achieve statutory requirements and policy goals. Key components of Alternative D would include management of motorized recreation through closure of an additional 469 acres, primarily within areas affected by hazardous materials sites, and limiting travel within the remaining 99.7 percent of BLM lands to designated roads and trails; management of forest vegetation focusing on areas where natural disturbance has occurred, yielding a probable sale of 4.4 million board-feet per year; incorporation of conservation measures from statewide BLM planning documents for federally protected plant and animal species; creation of three new areas of critical environmental concern/research natural areas (357 additional acres); recommendation that four eligible stream segments be included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; deferral of wild and scenic status for the remaining eligible stream segment until the Idaho national Panhandle National Forests makes a determination for adjacent segments; emphasizing land ownership adjustments that promote retention and acquisition of lands with both commodity and non-commodity resource values and lands that increase public access, provide recreational values, or consolidate federal holdings; management of wildland fire to protect people, property, and both commodity and non=-commodity resources; use of fire for resource benefits within all areas outside the wildland-urban interface; and protection of fish and riparian habitat and watersheds through the provisions of the Coeur d'Alene Native Fish Strategy. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would respond to changing ecological, socioeconomic, institutional, and regulatory conditions that have occurred since the approval of the Emerald Empire Management Framework Plan of 1981 and the various amendments and decisions that have been approved since plan approval. The revised pan would provide a single, comprehensive land use plan that would guide management of public lands and interests administered by the BLM field office. The plan would provide objectives, land use allocations, and management direction to maintain, improve, or restore resource conditions and to provide for the economic needs of local communities over the long-term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of mineral resources would result in the disturbance of land and cultural resource sites and geological structures and degrade visual aesthetics. Unauthorized off-road vehicle travel would scar lands and damage vegetation and could destroy surface cultural and paleontological resources. Vegetation treatments could cause displacement of wildlife, decreases in forage availability and quality. Changes in recreational patterns could cause damage to natural and cultural resources and give rise to conflicts between users. Restriction of recreationists, livestock operators, and other users of area resources could lessen the availability and usefulness of resources for beneficial exploitation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and errata to the draft EIS, see 06-0113D, Volume 30, Number 1 and 06-0217D, Volume 30, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 060442, Volume I--498 pages, Volume II--401 pages, October 20, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: ID-410-2005-EIS-1059
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Coeur d'Alene Resource Management Area
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343701?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COEUR+D%27ALENE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=COEUR+D%27ALENE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 20, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TONGUE RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, INC. - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION - WESTERN ALIGNMENT, TONGUE RIVER III, ROSEBUD AND BIG HORN COUNTIES, MONTANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS OF 1986 AND APRIL 1996).
AN  - 36349107; 12295
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit by the Surface Transportation Board (Board) for the construction and operation of 17.3 miles of rail line, to be known as the Western Alignment or Tongue River III, in Rosebud and Big Horn counties, Montana is proposed. The applicant (Tongue River Railroad Company, Inc.) previously submitted two related applications that were considered and approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Board's predecessor, in 1986 and 1996, known as Tongue River I and II, respectively, involving the construction and operation of rail lines in Custer, Big Horn, Powder River, and Rosebud counties; . The Western Alignment is an alternative route for the southernmost portion of the 41-mile Ashland-to-Decker alignment approved under Tongue River II and known as the Four Mile Alternative. The overall purpose of all the Tongue River rail projects is to transport coal from mines in the Powder River basin and the Tongue River Valley to markets in the Midwest and Northeast. The Board has conducted a thorough and comprehensive analysis of all potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Western Alignment, the results of which are contained in this final supplement to the final EISs of 1986 and April 1996. As part of the analysis, this supplement compares potential impacts of the Western Alignment to those of the previously approved Four Mile Creek Alternative considered in the 1996 final EIS. Furthermore, in this supplement, the applicant's proposed refinements to the alignment previously approved by the 1986 and 1996 reviews. It has been determined that both the proposed Western Alignment and the proposed Four Mile Creek Alignment are environmentally acceptable routes and that proposed refinements to alignments previously approved for Tongue River I and II would not result n any new significant impacts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By transporting coal from the Powder River basin and Tongue River Valley to the national railway system, the new rail lines would ensure a continued supply of coal to electrical power generation interests in the Midwest and Northeast. The reliability, security, and longevity of the U.S. coal supply system would be bolstered and the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy, particularly oil, would be lessened. Either of the routes considered acceptable, as either could operate safely and both avoid the sensitive Tongue River Canyon. The Western Alignment would offer certain operational efficiencies and concomitant environmental benefits due to its more favorable grade. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Western Alignment would displace 672 acres of new rights-of-way, affecting 13 landowners, 42 non-perennial stream crossings, 1.69 acres of wetlands, habitat for three endangered species, and nine cultural and paleontological resource sites. In addition, the project would require 17.3 million cubic yards of excavation, result in 18,300 to 28,700 tons of erosion per year during construction, increase sediment loads in the Tongue River by 6,770 to 10,600 tons per year, and require one new river bridge crossing. The Four Mile Creek Alignment would displace 765 acres of new rights-of-way, affecting 15 landowners (including two homeowners to be displaced), 40 non-perennial stream crossings, 6.09 acres of wetlands, habitat for three endangered species, and six cultural and paleontological resource sites. In addition, the project would require 10.3 million cubic yards of excavation, result in 14,600 to 23,800 tons of erosion per year during construction, increase sediment loads in the Tongue River by 3,650 to 6,000 tons per year, and require one new river bridge crossing. LEGAL MANDATES: American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. Sec 10901), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0235D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft, draft supplement, and final EIS on the 1996 Tongue River II rail line, see 92-0314D, Volume 16, Number 4, 94-0124D, Volume 18, Number 2, and 96-0174F, Volume 20, Number 2, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 060428, Final EIS-465 pages, Final EIS Appendices--612 pages, Draft EIS--444 pages, Draft EIS Appendices--581 pages, October 13, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: STB 37356
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Coal
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Montana
KW  - American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Interstate Commerce Act, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349107?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TONGUE+RIVER+RAILROAD+COMPANY%2C+INC.+-+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+-+WESTERN+ALIGNMENT%2C+TONGUE+RIVER+III%2C+ROSEBUD+AND+BIG+HORN+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENTS+OF+1986+AND+APRIL+1996%29.&rft.title=TONGUE+RIVER+RAILROAD+COMPANY%2C+INC.+-+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+-+WESTERN+ALIGNMENT%2C+TONGUE+RIVER+III%2C+ROSEBUD+AND+BIG+HORN+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENTS+OF+1986+AND+APRIL+1996%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 13, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EAGLE BUTTE WEST COAL LEASE APPLICATION (WYW155132), WYOMING POWDER RIVER BASIN.
AN  - 36348903; 12297
AB  - PURPOSE: The leasing by application of the Eagle Butte West Tract, a tract of federal coal estate in the Wyoming Power River Basin is proposed by RAG Coal West, Inc. The 1,397.64-acre tract, which contains approximately 238 million tons of in-place federal coal, lies adjacent to an existing surface coal mine in Campbell County. Fountain Coal West, the operator of the adjacent Eagle Butte Mine, proposes to mine the tract as a maintenance lease for the existing mine. At Eagle Butte Mine, there are two mineable coal seams, which are locally referred to as the Roland (upper) seam and the Smith (lower) seam. The seams are separated by a shale parting of variable thickness. The mineable seams are referred to as the Anderson and Canyon, Wyodak-Anderson, and Wyodak coal beds at other mines in the eastern Powder River Basin. Mining would remove an average of 325 feet of overburden, eight feet of inter-burden, and 110 feet of coal. The mine would produce 25 million tons per year, extending the life of the existing mine by eight to nine years, depending upon whether Highway 14-16, which overlays a portion of the tract, is moved away from the tract. The mine life would extend 12 years. In addition to the preferred action, this drat EIS addresses a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) and an alternative tract which encompasses the proposed tract but includes an additional 974.91 acres located north and south of the tract. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Coal produced by the mine would be added to domestic reserves, redu8cing the country's dependence on foreign sources of hydrocarbon fuels for the generation of electricity. Mining activities would employ 223 workers. Royalty payments for the tract would increase federal revenues by $188 million to $382 million, depending on the alternative selected. The potential additional revenue to the state of Wyoming would range from $267 million to $500 million NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The existing topography of the tract would be substantially altered during mining. Following reclamation, the average surface elevation would be lower due to coal removal. The reclaimed land surface would contain fewer and gentler topographic features, potentially resulting in a reduction in habitat diversity and wildlife carrying capacity. The geologic structure at the site would be subject to considerable permanent change. Coal-bed natural gas wells would be precluded in the area during mining and gas resources not tapped prior to mining would be vented into the atmosphere and, hence, lost to exploitation. Mining would disturb the coal aquifer and the aquifers in the overburden, and mining operations would require drawdown of the area aquifer. The two creeks that drain the site would have to be rerouted during mining. Approximately 37.5 acres of wetlands would be lost to mining. Lease development would also displace pasture and sagebrush grassland, the latter requiring 20 to 100 years to restore. Habitat for terrestrial vegetation and wildlife and birds, including the federally protected Ute ladies'-tresses orchid, bald eagle, and black-footed ferret would be destroyed. Noise and air pollutant emissions would affect occupied dwellings, businesses, the Rawhide School, and an area airport located in the vicinity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendment of 1976, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060430, pages. 528 pages, October 13, 2006
PY  - 2006
EP  - ages. 528 pages, October 13
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 06-43
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coal
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348903?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=ages.+528+pages&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+BUTTE+WEST+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+%28WYW155132%29%2C+WYOMING+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN.&rft.title=EAGLE+BUTTE+WEST+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+%28WYW155132%29%2C+WYOMING+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN.&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 - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 13, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, CHAVES, EDDY, LEA, AND ROOSEVELT COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 36341929; 12294
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the resource management plan for public lands and mineral estate administered by the Bureau of Land Management Pecos District Office in Chaves, Eddy, Lea, and Roosevelt counties, New Mexico is proposed to revise management planning for special status species. The amendment would modify the 1988 Carlsbad Resource Management Plan. Special status species include all state-listed and federally listed threatened and endangered species and other species given special attention by government agencies. In particular, the amendment would address management prescriptions concerning habitat for the lesser prairie chicken and the san dune lizard. Key issues addressed during scoping include those related to wildlife habitat, oil and gas development, livestock grazing, off-highway vehicle use and use area designations, and areas of critical environmental concern (ACEC). Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives would address lands and realty, fluid minerals, alternative energy sources, soils, water resources, floodplains, air quality, vegetation, non-native and invasive species, livestock management, wildlife habitat, recreation resources, off-highway vehicle use, visual resources, and special management areas. All action alternatives would also identify areas closed to new oil and gas leasing, adjust range management for livestock grazing according to watershed conditions, and designate one new ACEC and modify management of the existing ACECs. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would represent a conservation strategy and would add emphasis to sand dune lizard habitat and surface reclamation. The concepts of the New Mexico Lesser Prairie Chicken/Sand Dune Lizard Working Group's Draft Collaborative Conservation Strategy would be supplemented by measures designed to provide greater protection of lesser prairie chicken and sand dune lizard habitats and to increase the emphasis on habitat reclamation. New oil and gas leases outside the Carlsbad Management Area, but within sand dune lizard habitat, would include stipulations for surveys to locate occupied habitat prior to lease tract development. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance habitat protection for the benefit of special status species with the exploitation of non-wildlife resources within the management area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Areas closed to mineral exploration and development would be removed from the potential economic base of the region and the availability of these energy resources would be withheld from the national market. Exploitative uses of the management area would result in disturbance and destruction of habitat and incidental take of endangered species as well as damage to sensitive vegetation, grazing resources, watersheds, and visual aesthetics and other recreational values. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060427, 421 pages and maps, October 13, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 06-45
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Birds
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Conservation Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Geothermal Resources
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Carlsbad Resource Management Area
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36341929?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPECIAL+STATUS+SPECIES+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CHAVES%2C+EDDY%2C+LEA%2C+AND+ROOSEVELT+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SPECIAL+STATUS+SPECIES+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CHAVES%2C+EDDY%2C+LEA%2C+AND+ROOSEVELT+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Roswell, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 13, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ABRAHAM LINCOLN BIRTHPLACE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, LA RUE COUNTY, KENTUCKY. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - ABRAHAM LINCOLN BIRTHPLACE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, LA RUE COUNTY, KENTUCKY.
AN  - 756824402; 12286-060419_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan for the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site, La Rue County, Kentucky is proposed. First authorized as a national park in 1916 under the Secretary of War, the national historic site was redesignated by Congress on September 8, 1959. The last comprehensive management plan was completed in 1964 and, due to extensive changes in the surroundings and use of the site, revision of the management plan is required. When Lincoln was two years old, the Lincolns moved to the Knob Creek Farm, approximately 10 miles from the birthplace cabin. In 1998, Congress authorized the acquisition and addition of the land and cultural and natural resources of the Knob Creek Farm (Boyhood Home Unit) to the national historic site. Visitor use patterns have changed and area interests wish to bring new recreational activities to the national historic site. Four alternatives for management of the site over the next 15 to 20 years, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize the preservation and conservation of cultural and natural resources at the site; Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would enhance opportunities for visitors to interact with and appreciate all of the national historic site's resources, while preserving or adaptively reusing those cultural resources. The visitor center would be enhanced, with national Park Service (NPS) administrative functions moved to vacant NPS housing or the Nancy Lincoln Inn property if acquired. Vacant space would be used for additional interpretation. The visitor center parking lot would be moved toward the highway and enlarged. Keith Road would be removed to improve safety, bring the area closer to its historic appearance, and restore forest habitat. Other recreational and educational facilities and programs would be improved and/or expanded. If acquired, the Nancy Lincoln Inn would be restored to the earliest 1930s exterior appearance that the documentation would allow. The associated guest cabins would be evaluated for possible NPS use or removed. The modern house would be removed or converted to NPS administrative offices. The tavern at the Boyhood Home Unit would be restored to its 1930s exterior appearance and reused as a visitor contact station, sales and exhibits area, restroom site, offices, or staff quarters. Access to the Boyhood Home Unit would be redesigned for safety, and the parking area would be moved outside the historic district behind the tavern building. An interpretive garden would be planted with crop plants common at the time the Lincolns lived at the site. Fields at the Boyhood Home Unit would be reestablished to their historic size and configuration. An agricultural lease would be used to maintain the historic appearance and use of the fields. One trail would be repaired and a new trail would be provided. if feasible, 50 acres on the north side of the unit would be acquired to protect a rare hardwood glade and the associated historic/scenic views. Alternative D would focus on instilling a stewardship ethic through interpretation and resource education, including recreation and restoration of the historic scene. Capital costs for implementing the preferred alternative are estimated at $2.2 million. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised management plan would clearly define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved at the historic site; provide a framework for NPS managers to use when making decisions about how to best protect national historic site resources and opportunities and how to manage visitor use and facilities; and ensure that this foundation for decision-making has been developed in consultation with interested stakeholders and adopted by the NPS leadership. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with reconfiguring and/or renovating portions of the site would result in short-term, negligible impacts to soils and vegetation in the immediate area. 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 06-0252D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 060419, 229 pages, October 10, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site
KW  - Kentucky
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824402?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ABRAHAM+LINCOLN+BIRTHPLACE+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+LA+RUE+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.title=ABRAHAM+LINCOLN+BIRTHPLACE+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+LA+RUE+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ABRAHAM LINCOLN BIRTHPLACE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, LA RUE COUNTY, KENTUCKY.
AN  - 36342658; 12286
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan for the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site, La Rue County, Kentucky is proposed. First authorized as a national park in 1916 under the Secretary of War, the national historic site was redesignated by Congress on September 8, 1959. The last comprehensive management plan was completed in 1964 and, due to extensive changes in the surroundings and use of the site, revision of the management plan is required. When Lincoln was two years old, the Lincolns moved to the Knob Creek Farm, approximately 10 miles from the birthplace cabin. In 1998, Congress authorized the acquisition and addition of the land and cultural and natural resources of the Knob Creek Farm (Boyhood Home Unit) to the national historic site. Visitor use patterns have changed and area interests wish to bring new recreational activities to the national historic site. Four alternatives for management of the site over the next 15 to 20 years, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize the preservation and conservation of cultural and natural resources at the site; Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would enhance opportunities for visitors to interact with and appreciate all of the national historic site's resources, while preserving or adaptively reusing those cultural resources. The visitor center would be enhanced, with national Park Service (NPS) administrative functions moved to vacant NPS housing or the Nancy Lincoln Inn property if acquired. Vacant space would be used for additional interpretation. The visitor center parking lot would be moved toward the highway and enlarged. Keith Road would be removed to improve safety, bring the area closer to its historic appearance, and restore forest habitat. Other recreational and educational facilities and programs would be improved and/or expanded. If acquired, the Nancy Lincoln Inn would be restored to the earliest 1930s exterior appearance that the documentation would allow. The associated guest cabins would be evaluated for possible NPS use or removed. The modern house would be removed or converted to NPS administrative offices. The tavern at the Boyhood Home Unit would be restored to its 1930s exterior appearance and reused as a visitor contact station, sales and exhibits area, restroom site, offices, or staff quarters. Access to the Boyhood Home Unit would be redesigned for safety, and the parking area would be moved outside the historic district behind the tavern building. An interpretive garden would be planted with crop plants common at the time the Lincolns lived at the site. Fields at the Boyhood Home Unit would be reestablished to their historic size and configuration. An agricultural lease would be used to maintain the historic appearance and use of the fields. One trail would be repaired and a new trail would be provided. if feasible, 50 acres on the north side of the unit would be acquired to protect a rare hardwood glade and the associated historic/scenic views. Alternative D would focus on instilling a stewardship ethic through interpretation and resource education, including recreation and restoration of the historic scene. Capital costs for implementing the preferred alternative are estimated at $2.2 million. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised management plan would clearly define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved at the historic site; provide a framework for NPS managers to use when making decisions about how to best protect national historic site resources and opportunities and how to manage visitor use and facilities; and ensure that this foundation for decision-making has been developed in consultation with interested stakeholders and adopted by the NPS leadership. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with reconfiguring and/or renovating portions of the site would result in short-term, negligible impacts to soils and vegetation in the immediate area. 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 06-0252D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 060419, 229 pages, October 10, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site
KW  - Kentucky
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342658?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ABRAHAM+LINCOLN+BIRTHPLACE+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+LA+RUE+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.title=ABRAHAM+LINCOLN+BIRTHPLACE+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+LA+RUE+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TAOS REGIONAL AIRPORT, AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN IMPROVEMENTS, TOWN OF TAOS, TAOS COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 36342503; 12278
AB  - PURPOSE: The modification of the Taos Regional Airport layout in Taos, Taos County, New Mexico is proposed. In 2003, the town completed a development plan to improve service and safety at the facility. At present the facility does not provide all-weather wind coverage in a manner that would safely accommodates existing and proposed aviation demand, nor are the lengths of the existing runway sufficient to accommodate the existing and projected aviation demand safely and efficiently. The airfield system complex would consist of the runway, which would accommodate aircraft weighing up to 60,000 pounds, and full length parallel taxiway, as well as the associated runway lighting, navigational aids for Category I Instrument Landing System capabilities, runway safety areas and protection zones, and associated grading, drainage, and utility relocations. A remote transmitter/receiver would be situated on airport property to allow aircraft operators to communicate with air transport control in Albuquerque while the planes are operating at the airport. The plan would also include construction of a new airport entry road and extension of the existing access road. The project would involve the construction of a new 8,800-foot-long, 1900-foot-widee runway capable of accommodating Airplane Design Group C-II aircraft; shortening of Runway 4/22 by 420 feet to the northeast to preclude the penetration of the relocated Runway 4 threshold sitting surface by aircraft operating on the new runway/taxiway system and to keep the existing non-precision Runway Protection Zone entirely on airport property; and construction of the two abovementioned roads. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS addresses off-site air transport alternatives and runway sitting alternatives. The proposed improvements would be undertaken between 2006 and 2010 and operational in the year 2010. Improvements beyond 2010, which are not addressed in detail in this EIS, would include expansion of the aircraft tie-down apron, construction of aircraft hangers, and construction of a new airport terminal building. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would provide for enhanced safety and utility of the airport for all users by providing a runway that allows for year-round wind coverage and that is of sufficient length to accommodate the requirements of the aircraft fleet currently operating at the facility. As the longer runway became available for use, a slightly higher number of cabin-class turboprop and jet aircraft would be able to utilize the airport. Due to safety considerations related to factors such as density altitude, available runway length, and the aeronautical role of the airport, the likelihood of larger narrow-body commercial aircraft operating at the facility is remote. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Aircraft noise in the vicinity of the airport would increase significantly, potenti8ally affecting the Taos Pueblo, a Native American community nominated for placement on the World Heritage List. Airport facilities would displace biotic communities and floodplain storage capacity LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060408, Draft EIS--386 pages and maps, Appendices A-E--621 pages; Appendices F-Q--366 pages and maps, October 5, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Air Transportation
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Airports
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Navigation Aids
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Districts
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342503?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAOS+REGIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+AIRPORT+LAYOUT+PLAN+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+TOWN+OF+TAOS%2C+TAOS+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=TAOS+REGIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+AIRPORT+LAYOUT+PLAN+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+TOWN+OF+TAOS%2C+TAOS+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 5, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EBEY'S LANDING NATIONAL HISTORICAL RESERVE, COUPEVILLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - EBEY'S LANDING NATIONAL HISTORICAL RESERVE, COUPEVILLE, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 756824401; 12277-060407_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new 15- to 20-year general management plan for the Ebey's Land National Historic Reserve, Coupeville, Washington is proposed. The 17,572-acre Reserve, which is located in western Washington on Whidbey Island on the Puget Sound, lies 50 miles south of the Canadian border and 27 miles north of Seattle. The Reserve encompasses 13,617 acres of land and 3,955 acres known as Penn Cove. The Reserve was created to preserve and protect a rural community that provides an unbroken historic record from Nineteenth Century exploration and settlement in the Puget Sound to the present time. The current comprehensive management plan for the Reserve is 25 years old. The Reserve was created by Congress in 1978 as a unit of the National Park System. The Reserve is not a traditional national park, as its management and resource protection direction provides boundaries largely encompassing private lands (85 percent) managed through a partnership. Though most of the national units are managed by a superintendent, the reserve is managed by a nine-member Trust Board comprised of representatives from town, county, state, and federal government authorities. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the National Park Service (NPS) would dispose of NPS-owned and managed farms within the Reserve, selling these tracts to the private sector after placing he under conservation easements. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would involve cooperation by the Reserve's Trust Board, the NPS, and local partners to enhance existing programs and resources management, as well as administrative, maintenance, and visitor services. To maintain and protect the rural landscape, the NPS would continue to purchase conservation easements on property properties based upon a new land protection plan. The NPS would exchange NPS-owned farms for privately owned farms for addition protection on other properties within the Reserve. Historic buildings would be rehabilitated to the Secretary of the Interior's standards. The county would be encouraged to develop a ongoing overlay for the Reserve to aid in land use control. In addition, a minor boundary adjustment would be recommended. To orient and inform visitors regarding the Reserve, three gateway kiosks would be developed along State Route 20 and a visitor/contact station would be sites in an historic building in Coupeville or within the historic district. Three development concept plans for three sites are included as part of the proposal. Alternative C would change the management structure of the Reserve from a Trust Board of volunteers to a paid commission. Many actions would be similar to those under Alternative B. Approximately five acres of NPS-owned land at Farm II would be retained for administrative and maintenance use before exchanging the remaining farmland to a private farm owner for additional protection on other properties within the Reserve. One of the three gateways would be in a historic building in the north portion of the Reserve. The Reserve would partner for a visitor contact facility at a proposed marine science center. Capital and land acquisition development costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $2.8 million to $3.2 million and $975,000 to $1.15 million. (130) Annual operating costs are estimated at $798,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new management plan would replace an outdated scheme with a management direction would answer the developing needs of the Reserve. A more flexible management regime would ensure the protection and enjoyment of Reserve resources. Incompatible development within and adjacent to the Reserve would be less likely. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities construction activities would result in short-term impacts, including nose, dust, and interruption of visitor use in some areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1241), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0610D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060407, 385 pages, October 2, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Bays
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Easements
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Islands
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve
KW  - Puget Sound
KW  - Washington
KW  - Whidbey Island
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824401?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EBEY%27S+LANDING+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+RESERVE%2C+COUPEVILLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EBEY%27S+LANDING+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+RESERVE%2C+COUPEVILLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Coupeville, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 2, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EBEY'S LANDING NATIONAL HISTORICAL RESERVE, COUPEVILLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - EBEY'S LANDING NATIONAL HISTORICAL RESERVE, COUPEVILLE, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 756824392; 12277-060407_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new 15- to 20-year general management plan for the Ebey's Land National Historic Reserve, Coupeville, Washington is proposed. The 17,572-acre Reserve, which is located in western Washington on Whidbey Island on the Puget Sound, lies 50 miles south of the Canadian border and 27 miles north of Seattle. The Reserve encompasses 13,617 acres of land and 3,955 acres known as Penn Cove. The Reserve was created to preserve and protect a rural community that provides an unbroken historic record from Nineteenth Century exploration and settlement in the Puget Sound to the present time. The current comprehensive management plan for the Reserve is 25 years old. The Reserve was created by Congress in 1978 as a unit of the National Park System. The Reserve is not a traditional national park, as its management and resource protection direction provides boundaries largely encompassing private lands (85 percent) managed through a partnership. Though most of the national units are managed by a superintendent, the reserve is managed by a nine-member Trust Board comprised of representatives from town, county, state, and federal government authorities. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the National Park Service (NPS) would dispose of NPS-owned and managed farms within the Reserve, selling these tracts to the private sector after placing he under conservation easements. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would involve cooperation by the Reserve's Trust Board, the NPS, and local partners to enhance existing programs and resources management, as well as administrative, maintenance, and visitor services. To maintain and protect the rural landscape, the NPS would continue to purchase conservation easements on property properties based upon a new land protection plan. The NPS would exchange NPS-owned farms for privately owned farms for addition protection on other properties within the Reserve. Historic buildings would be rehabilitated to the Secretary of the Interior's standards. The county would be encouraged to develop a ongoing overlay for the Reserve to aid in land use control. In addition, a minor boundary adjustment would be recommended. To orient and inform visitors regarding the Reserve, three gateway kiosks would be developed along State Route 20 and a visitor/contact station would be sites in an historic building in Coupeville or within the historic district. Three development concept plans for three sites are included as part of the proposal. Alternative C would change the management structure of the Reserve from a Trust Board of volunteers to a paid commission. Many actions would be similar to those under Alternative B. Approximately five acres of NPS-owned land at Farm II would be retained for administrative and maintenance use before exchanging the remaining farmland to a private farm owner for additional protection on other properties within the Reserve. One of the three gateways would be in a historic building in the north portion of the Reserve. The Reserve would partner for a visitor contact facility at a proposed marine science center. Capital and land acquisition development costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $2.8 million to $3.2 million and $975,000 to $1.15 million. (130) Annual operating costs are estimated at $798,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new management plan would replace an outdated scheme with a management direction would answer the developing needs of the Reserve. A more flexible management regime would ensure the protection and enjoyment of Reserve resources. Incompatible development within and adjacent to the Reserve would be less likely. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities construction activities would result in short-term impacts, including nose, dust, and interruption of visitor use in some areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1241), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0610D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060407, 385 pages, October 2, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Bays
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Easements
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Islands
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve
KW  - Puget Sound
KW  - Washington
KW  - Whidbey Island
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824392?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EBEY%27S+LANDING+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+RESERVE%2C+COUPEVILLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EBEY%27S+LANDING+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+RESERVE%2C+COUPEVILLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Coupeville, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 2, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EBEY'S LANDING NATIONAL HISTORICAL RESERVE, COUPEVILLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - EBEY'S LANDING NATIONAL HISTORICAL RESERVE, COUPEVILLE, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 756824383; 12277-060407_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new 15- to 20-year general management plan for the Ebey's Land National Historic Reserve, Coupeville, Washington is proposed. The 17,572-acre Reserve, which is located in western Washington on Whidbey Island on the Puget Sound, lies 50 miles south of the Canadian border and 27 miles north of Seattle. The Reserve encompasses 13,617 acres of land and 3,955 acres known as Penn Cove. The Reserve was created to preserve and protect a rural community that provides an unbroken historic record from Nineteenth Century exploration and settlement in the Puget Sound to the present time. The current comprehensive management plan for the Reserve is 25 years old. The Reserve was created by Congress in 1978 as a unit of the National Park System. The Reserve is not a traditional national park, as its management and resource protection direction provides boundaries largely encompassing private lands (85 percent) managed through a partnership. Though most of the national units are managed by a superintendent, the reserve is managed by a nine-member Trust Board comprised of representatives from town, county, state, and federal government authorities. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the National Park Service (NPS) would dispose of NPS-owned and managed farms within the Reserve, selling these tracts to the private sector after placing he under conservation easements. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would involve cooperation by the Reserve's Trust Board, the NPS, and local partners to enhance existing programs and resources management, as well as administrative, maintenance, and visitor services. To maintain and protect the rural landscape, the NPS would continue to purchase conservation easements on property properties based upon a new land protection plan. The NPS would exchange NPS-owned farms for privately owned farms for addition protection on other properties within the Reserve. Historic buildings would be rehabilitated to the Secretary of the Interior's standards. The county would be encouraged to develop a ongoing overlay for the Reserve to aid in land use control. In addition, a minor boundary adjustment would be recommended. To orient and inform visitors regarding the Reserve, three gateway kiosks would be developed along State Route 20 and a visitor/contact station would be sites in an historic building in Coupeville or within the historic district. Three development concept plans for three sites are included as part of the proposal. Alternative C would change the management structure of the Reserve from a Trust Board of volunteers to a paid commission. Many actions would be similar to those under Alternative B. Approximately five acres of NPS-owned land at Farm II would be retained for administrative and maintenance use before exchanging the remaining farmland to a private farm owner for additional protection on other properties within the Reserve. One of the three gateways would be in a historic building in the north portion of the Reserve. The Reserve would partner for a visitor contact facility at a proposed marine science center. Capital and land acquisition development costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $2.8 million to $3.2 million and $975,000 to $1.15 million. (130) Annual operating costs are estimated at $798,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new management plan would replace an outdated scheme with a management direction would answer the developing needs of the Reserve. A more flexible management regime would ensure the protection and enjoyment of Reserve resources. Incompatible development within and adjacent to the Reserve would be less likely. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities construction activities would result in short-term impacts, including nose, dust, and interruption of visitor use in some areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1241), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0610D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060407, 385 pages, October 2, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Bays
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Easements
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Islands
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve
KW  - Puget Sound
KW  - Washington
KW  - Whidbey Island
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824383?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EBEY%27S+LANDING+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+RESERVE%2C+COUPEVILLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EBEY%27S+LANDING+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+RESERVE%2C+COUPEVILLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Coupeville, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 2, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EBEY'S LANDING NATIONAL HISTORICAL RESERVE, COUPEVILLE, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36347620; 12277
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new 15- to 20-year general management plan for the Ebey's Land National Historic Reserve, Coupeville, Washington is proposed. The 17,572-acre Reserve, which is located in western Washington on Whidbey Island on the Puget Sound, lies 50 miles south of the Canadian border and 27 miles north of Seattle. The Reserve encompasses 13,617 acres of land and 3,955 acres known as Penn Cove. The Reserve was created to preserve and protect a rural community that provides an unbroken historic record from Nineteenth Century exploration and settlement in the Puget Sound to the present time. The current comprehensive management plan for the Reserve is 25 years old. The Reserve was created by Congress in 1978 as a unit of the National Park System. The Reserve is not a traditional national park, as its management and resource protection direction provides boundaries largely encompassing private lands (85 percent) managed through a partnership. Though most of the national units are managed by a superintendent, the reserve is managed by a nine-member Trust Board comprised of representatives from town, county, state, and federal government authorities. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the National Park Service (NPS) would dispose of NPS-owned and managed farms within the Reserve, selling these tracts to the private sector after placing he under conservation easements. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would involve cooperation by the Reserve's Trust Board, the NPS, and local partners to enhance existing programs and resources management, as well as administrative, maintenance, and visitor services. To maintain and protect the rural landscape, the NPS would continue to purchase conservation easements on property properties based upon a new land protection plan. The NPS would exchange NPS-owned farms for privately owned farms for addition protection on other properties within the Reserve. Historic buildings would be rehabilitated to the Secretary of the Interior's standards. The county would be encouraged to develop a ongoing overlay for the Reserve to aid in land use control. In addition, a minor boundary adjustment would be recommended. To orient and inform visitors regarding the Reserve, three gateway kiosks would be developed along State Route 20 and a visitor/contact station would be sites in an historic building in Coupeville or within the historic district. Three development concept plans for three sites are included as part of the proposal. Alternative C would change the management structure of the Reserve from a Trust Board of volunteers to a paid commission. Many actions would be similar to those under Alternative B. Approximately five acres of NPS-owned land at Farm II would be retained for administrative and maintenance use before exchanging the remaining farmland to a private farm owner for additional protection on other properties within the Reserve. One of the three gateways would be in a historic building in the north portion of the Reserve. The Reserve would partner for a visitor contact facility at a proposed marine science center. Capital and land acquisition development costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $2.8 million to $3.2 million and $975,000 to $1.15 million. (130) Annual operating costs are estimated at $798,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new management plan would replace an outdated scheme with a management direction would answer the developing needs of the Reserve. A more flexible management regime would ensure the protection and enjoyment of Reserve resources. Incompatible development within and adjacent to the Reserve would be less likely. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities construction activities would result in short-term impacts, including nose, dust, and interruption of visitor use in some areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1241), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0610D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060407, 385 pages, October 2, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Bays
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Easements
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Islands
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve
KW  - Puget Sound
KW  - Washington
KW  - Whidbey Island
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347620?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EBEY%27S+LANDING+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+RESERVE%2C+COUPEVILLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EBEY%27S+LANDING+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+RESERVE%2C+COUPEVILLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Coupeville, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 2, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BAY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALASKA.
AN  - 36342345; 12276
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Bay Management Area of Alaska is proposed. The study area encompasses 22.6 million acres, of which 2.5 million acres are public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, in the Bristol Bay and Goodnews Bay areas of southwestern Alaska. Resource uses within the management area include forestry, livestock and reindeer grazing, and minerals extraction, recreation, renewable energy developments. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to oil and gas exploration and development leasing and its impact on sustainable natural resources and subsistence activities, land tenure adjustments to consolidate discontinuous blocks of public land to ease management, determination of the means by which access is to be provided to BLM managed lands for various management purposes, designation of special management areas, and designation of rivers for consideration for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would balance resource protection with resource exploitation. Withdrawals under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) would be revoked, and the majority of unencumbered lands, and any associated lands whose selection would be relinquished or rejected, would be open to oil and gas leasing and development subject to seasonal or other restrictions and to mineral location. Approximately 3,999 acres would continue to be withdrawn under ANCSA. One area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) would be established, namely, the Carter Spit ACEC; plans would be developed and specific measures adopted to protect values in this area. The ACEC would be closed to salable mineral entry. No river corridors would be recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Specific lands n the Goodnews Bay and Bristol Bay areas would be managed up to 0.5 le from established winter trail or road systems at Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class III. BLM lands in the full visible foreground up to one mile from the boundaries of coastal scenic units would be managed at VRM Class IV. The ACEC would be managed for VRM Class III. All BLM-managed lands within the planning area. All other BLM lands would be managed at VRM Class IV. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on all BLM lands would be limited, allowing for limitations to be places on OHV use to protect habitat, soil and vegetation, and/or recreation resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for protection, use, and enhancement of resources. The plan would provide site-specific management guidance on 1.2 million areas of unencumbered BLM-administered land as well as ay of the 1.3 million acres of state-selected or Native American-selected lands that remain under BLM jurisdiction until such lands are conveyed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploitation, particularly extraction of oil and gas, would disturb soils and destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Exploitative uses would also place pressure on subsistence activities and reduce the extent of rangeland useful for grazing. Finally forest products exploitation and mineral extraction and the associated road construction would mar visual aesthetics in the area and generally reduce the pristine values associated with the coastal region. OHV restrictions would reduce access to and within some locales within the Bay Area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060406, Volume 1--487 pages and maps, Volume 2--222 pages and maps, October 2, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM
KW  - Bays
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Geothermal Resources
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Bay Resource Management Area
KW  - Bristol Bay
KW  - Goodnews Bay
KW  - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342345?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-10-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=BAY+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 2, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING.
AN  - 756824757; 12266-060396_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a transportation plan for Grand Teton National Park in Teton County, Wyoming is proposed. The park encompasses more than 310,000 acres in northwestern Wyoming. The plan would include roadway shoulder improvements, separated multi-use pathways, traveler information systems, and a limited pilot transit program. The National Park Service (NPS) would also test several different management strategies on the Moose-Wilson Road in order to gather information about the best way to maintaining the existing character of the corridor while recognizing its sensitivity with respect to wildlife and scenic values. Over the past several decades, the NPS has worked to reduce the impacts of motor vehicles on core activity areas and to provide opportunities for visitors to experience many parts of the park. In 2001, a transpiration study was conducted to identify actions that would improve visitor experience and mobility, reduce the potential for congestion in key areas, and provide information to visitors to help them avoid adverse experiences and to promote a variety of transportation options. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to visual and scenic quality, soils, vegetation, hydrology and water quality, wetlands, wildlife, cultural resources, the transportation system and traffic, visitor and employee experience, the social and economic environment, local communities, and park operations. Five 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 3a) would provide for a mix of multi-use pathways and improved roadway shoulders, targeted toward cyclists and pedestrians. Parking areas would be expanded and otherwise improved. Selected social trails in high-use developed areas would be improved and delineated. A pilot program for transit service from Jackson to Colter Bay and along the Moose-Wilson Road would provide the NPS with an opportunity to evaluate the growing levels of rider ship and public acceptance of transit options. Total capital cost for implementation of the preferred alternative is estimated at $45.0 million, and the annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $558,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new plan would improve and enhance the experience of park visitors. Opportunities to integrate the park's transportation network with those of neighboring communities would also be enhanced. The preferred alternative would target transportation to specific user groups and geographic areas in order to achieve a balance between enhancements to visitor experience and resource impacts. The alternative offers benefits to quality of visitor movement within the park, ability to experience primary park resources and natural settings, and availability of travel mode choices. Park operations would be moderately affected due to the expected increase in workload. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would have moderate adverse impacts on visual quality, soils, and vegetation, and minor adverse impacts on water resources and wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 81-787. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0550D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060396, Executive Summary--22 pages, Final EIS--363 pages, September 26, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 06-33
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Soils
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Grand Teton National Park
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 81-787, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824757?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSPORTATION+PLAN%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+MOOSE%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=TRANSPORTATION+PLAN%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+MOOSE%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Moose, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 26, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING.
AN  - 756824415; 12266-060396_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a transportation plan for Grand Teton National Park in Teton County, Wyoming is proposed. The park encompasses more than 310,000 acres in northwestern Wyoming. The plan would include roadway shoulder improvements, separated multi-use pathways, traveler information systems, and a limited pilot transit program. The National Park Service (NPS) would also test several different management strategies on the Moose-Wilson Road in order to gather information about the best way to maintaining the existing character of the corridor while recognizing its sensitivity with respect to wildlife and scenic values. Over the past several decades, the NPS has worked to reduce the impacts of motor vehicles on core activity areas and to provide opportunities for visitors to experience many parts of the park. In 2001, a transpiration study was conducted to identify actions that would improve visitor experience and mobility, reduce the potential for congestion in key areas, and provide information to visitors to help them avoid adverse experiences and to promote a variety of transportation options. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to visual and scenic quality, soils, vegetation, hydrology and water quality, wetlands, wildlife, cultural resources, the transportation system and traffic, visitor and employee experience, the social and economic environment, local communities, and park operations. Five 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 3a) would provide for a mix of multi-use pathways and improved roadway shoulders, targeted toward cyclists and pedestrians. Parking areas would be expanded and otherwise improved. Selected social trails in high-use developed areas would be improved and delineated. A pilot program for transit service from Jackson to Colter Bay and along the Moose-Wilson Road would provide the NPS with an opportunity to evaluate the growing levels of rider ship and public acceptance of transit options. Total capital cost for implementation of the preferred alternative is estimated at $45.0 million, and the annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $558,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new plan would improve and enhance the experience of park visitors. Opportunities to integrate the park's transportation network with those of neighboring communities would also be enhanced. The preferred alternative would target transportation to specific user groups and geographic areas in order to achieve a balance between enhancements to visitor experience and resource impacts. The alternative offers benefits to quality of visitor movement within the park, ability to experience primary park resources and natural settings, and availability of travel mode choices. Park operations would be moderately affected due to the expected increase in workload. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would have moderate adverse impacts on visual quality, soils, and vegetation, and minor adverse impacts on water resources and wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 81-787. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0550D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060396, Executive Summary--22 pages, Final EIS--363 pages, September 26, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 06-33
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Soils
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Grand Teton National Park
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 81-787, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824415?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSPORTATION+PLAN%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+MOOSE%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=TRANSPORTATION+PLAN%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+MOOSE%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Moose, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 26, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING.
AN  - 36346262; 12266
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a transportation plan for Grand Teton National Park in Teton County, Wyoming is proposed. The park encompasses more than 310,000 acres in northwestern Wyoming. The plan would include roadway shoulder improvements, separated multi-use pathways, traveler information systems, and a limited pilot transit program. The National Park Service (NPS) would also test several different management strategies on the Moose-Wilson Road in order to gather information about the best way to maintaining the existing character of the corridor while recognizing its sensitivity with respect to wildlife and scenic values. Over the past several decades, the NPS has worked to reduce the impacts of motor vehicles on core activity areas and to provide opportunities for visitors to experience many parts of the park. In 2001, a transpiration study was conducted to identify actions that would improve visitor experience and mobility, reduce the potential for congestion in key areas, and provide information to visitors to help them avoid adverse experiences and to promote a variety of transportation options. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to visual and scenic quality, soils, vegetation, hydrology and water quality, wetlands, wildlife, cultural resources, the transportation system and traffic, visitor and employee experience, the social and economic environment, local communities, and park operations. Five 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 3a) would provide for a mix of multi-use pathways and improved roadway shoulders, targeted toward cyclists and pedestrians. Parking areas would be expanded and otherwise improved. Selected social trails in high-use developed areas would be improved and delineated. A pilot program for transit service from Jackson to Colter Bay and along the Moose-Wilson Road would provide the NPS with an opportunity to evaluate the growing levels of rider ship and public acceptance of transit options. Total capital cost for implementation of the preferred alternative is estimated at $45.0 million, and the annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $558,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new plan would improve and enhance the experience of park visitors. Opportunities to integrate the park's transportation network with those of neighboring communities would also be enhanced. The preferred alternative would target transportation to specific user groups and geographic areas in order to achieve a balance between enhancements to visitor experience and resource impacts. The alternative offers benefits to quality of visitor movement within the park, ability to experience primary park resources and natural settings, and availability of travel mode choices. Park operations would be moderately affected due to the expected increase in workload. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would have moderate adverse impacts on visual quality, soils, and vegetation, and minor adverse impacts on water resources and wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 81-787. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0550D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060396, Executive Summary--22 pages, Final EIS--363 pages, September 26, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 06-33
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Soils
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Grand Teton National Park
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 81-787, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346262?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSPORTATION+PLAN%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+MOOSE%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=TRANSPORTATION+PLAN%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+MOOSE%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Moose, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 26, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ELK VALLEY RANCHERIA, MARTIN RANCH FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO/RESORT PROJECT, DEL NORTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - ELK VALLEY RANCHERIA, MARTIN RANCH FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO/RESORT PROJECT, DEL NORTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 756824426; 12264-060394_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of a destination resort, including a hotel, conference center, casino, and parking facility, within a 203.5-acre site located one mile southeast of Crescent City, Del Norte County, California is proposed. The proposal would involve the acquisition of the Martin Ranch property into Tribal trust status for the Valley Rancheria Tribe. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative A) and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), this final addresses an alternative that would involve the development of a golf course with or without a casino (alternatives B and C) and another alternative that would provide a conference center, hotel, and casino on a 22-acre parcel at Enderts Beach (Alternative D); the Enderts Beach site is located 0.25 mile south of the Martin Ranch site. The proposed action has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The creation of the Tribal trust and the associated casino and hotel development would greatly enhance the Tribe's economic development potential, which is the paramount objective of the Tribe. Moving the Tribe's existing gaming operation to this site, which is a more suitable location, and developing other supporting recreational and tourist-centered facilities would produce major economic benefits to the Tribe and the surrounding community. The resort would provide direct employment opportunities for 200 Tribe members, generally improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a new and expanded revenue source, provide capital for other economic development and investment opportunities, restore a lost land base, allow the tribe to acquire land needed to exercise governmental powers, and allow Tribe members to become economically self-sufficient, thereby removing members from public assistance programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities under the preferred alternative would be located within the Crescent City marsh; however, measures have been incorporated into the project design to address potential impacts associated with storm water runoff. Clearing of vegetation, grading of soil, and conversion of natural land to impermeable surface would be required. Site topography would be altered somewhat. Annual grassland and pasture would be lost. One historic site and one historic trail could be affected. Visual aesthetics in the area would decline significantly due to the development. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0121D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 060394, Draft EIS--261 pages, Appendices--944 pages, September 13, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 1
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Trails
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824426?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ELK+VALLEY+RANCHERIA%2C+MARTIN+RANCH+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO%2FRESORT+PROJECT%2C+DEL+NORTE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ELK+VALLEY+RANCHERIA%2C+MARTIN+RANCH+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO%2FRESORT+PROJECT%2C+DEL+NORTE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH FLORIDA AND CARIBBEAN PARKS EXOTIC PLANT MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36341824; 12253
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an exotic plant management plan for the units of the National Park System in south Florida and the Caribbean Sea is proposed. The park units included in the scope of this proposal are Big Cypress National Preserve, Biscayne National Park, Buck Island Reef National Monument, Canaveral National Seashore, Christiansted National Historic Site, Salt River Bay National Historic Park and Ecological Preserve, Dry Tortugas National Park, and Everglades National Park. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing exotic plant management regimes, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative A, the nine parks would continue to treat infestations of exotic plants on an ad hoc basis and through currently available funding sources. Alternatives B and C would provide a new framework for exotic plant management involving increased planning, monitoring, and mitigation. Both action alternatives would apply a systematic approach that would prioritize exotic plants for treatment, monitor the effects of those treatments on exotic plants and park resources, and mitigate any adverse effects to park resources as determined through the monitoring program. These alternatives would employ an adaptive management strategy, using the results of monitoring to adjust treatment methods or mitigation methods to reached the desired future condition in the treated areas. Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, would augment these measures with an active restoration program to enhance the return of native species to treated areas in select high-priority zones. The difference distinguishing Alternative C from Alternative B lies in the restoration plan and some alterations to the monitoring plan and added criteria to determine the success of treatment. Under Alternative C, a decision tool would be applied to determine areas that were appropriate for active restoration, which would occur in park areas that have been previously disturbed and in areas providing potential habitat for threatened and endangered species or sensitive vegetation communities where a more rapid recovery would be desirable. The active restoration approach for a given treatment would be determined based on a site-specific evaluation. Other areas of the park would recover passively under Alternative C, as would be the case for all areas under Alternative B. Exotic plant infestations within the parks would undergo initial treatments within three years of implementation of the plant management plan. Re-treatments would occur every four to 12 months depending on the targeted exotic plant and the progress of native plant recovery. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under either action alternative, the effectiveness of efforts to control exotic plant invasion into native habitats would increase substantially as a result of uniform recording and storage of information acquired during monitoring and sharing of that information among the nine park units. The more aggressive approach proposed under Alternative C would hasten the recovery of especially sensitive habitats. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exotic plant control and restoration activities involving mechanized equipment would take place in designated wilderness areas. All treated areas would undergo some disturbance to native plant communities, and destruction of non-target species, including federally protected plant, fish, and marine mammal species, would occur incidentally. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060383, Volume 1--752 pages, Volume 2--332 pages and maps, September 12, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Bays
KW  - Beaches
KW  - Corals
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Herbicides
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Marine Systems
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Research
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Reefs
KW  - Shores
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Atlantic Ocean
KW  - Caribbean Sea
KW  - Gulf of Mexico
KW  - Big Cypress National Preserve
KW  - Biscayne National Park
KW  - Buck Island Reef National Monument
KW  - Canaveral National Seashore
KW  - Christiansted National Historic Site
KW  - Dry Tortugas National Park
KW  - Everglades National Park
KW  - Florida
KW  - Salt River Bay National Historic Park and Ecological Preserve
KW  - Virgin Islands National Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36341824?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+FLORIDA+AND+CARIBBEAN+PARKS+EXOTIC+PLANT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=SOUTH+FLORIDA+AND+CARIBBEAN+PARKS+EXOTIC+PLANT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 12, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BENEFITS-SHARING FOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RESEARCH SCIENTISTS.
AN  - 36342871; 12248
AB  - PURPOSE: Clarification of the rights and responsibilities of National Park Service (NPS) researchers and management in connection with the use of valuable discoveries, inventions, and other developments that result from research involving specimens lawfully collected from units of the National Park System is proposed. Currently, the NPS rules on intellectual property does not require benefits-sharing, which refers to agreements that could occur between the NPS and researchers studying NPS research specimens. Under the current scheme researchers are barred from collecting research specimens in the National Park System if their studies might result in commercially viable products. The commercial use or sale of research specimens themselves is prohibited by regulation. However, the commercial use of knowledge derived from specimens via research is not prohibited. Commercial use of research results has, in the past, been left entirely up to the researchers without involvement from the NPS and without any further obligation or responsibilities to the NPS. Essentially, the purpose of this EIS is to examine the possible NPS administrative effects of implementing certain types of contracts. The rule change would apply to all of the approximately 400 NPS units. Under the proposed scheme, the benefits-sharing agreements, known as cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs), would be arranged only with researchers who already hold NPS research permits. The agreements would not authorize or regulate specimen collection or any other research activities in the park. Researchers would still have to apply for an NPS Scientific Research and Collection Permit, and park authorities would continue to evaluate each such application individually in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and NPS policies and regulations that protect park visitors and resources. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), this draft EIS considers the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current policy, and an alternative that would prohibit research specimen collection for any commercially related research purposes (Alternative C). Alternative is further broken down into three options. The preferred option would allow benefits-sharing and the option for disclosure of all terms and conditions to the public. However, royalty rates and related financial information could be identified by CRADA participants as confidential business proprietary information and withheld from the public. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to NPS natural resource management, NPS visitor experience and enjoyment, impacts on the research community, and impacts on NPS administrative operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Benefits-sharing agreements could return benefits to the affected park if the results of a scientist's research lead to the development of a commercially viable product or service. The new rule would clarify the relationship between researchers and park administrators. The proposed action would identify the role, if any, of the NPS in the event a researcher wished to commercialize his or her research results involving study of NPS research specimens; strengthen conservation and protection of resources managed by the NPS by deepening the understanding of biodiversity and physical and biological processes; and ensure that the NPS research permitting process is independent, objective, and unaffected by the proposed action. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some interested parties and members of the public would consider the withholding of proprietary information from full publication would result in the use of public resources without an appropriate return of the resulting benefits to the public good. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Technology Transfer Act, Freedom of Information Act, and National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998.
JF  - EPA number: 060378, 417 pages, September 11, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 06-42
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Research
KW  - Federal Technology Transfer Act, Compliance
KW  - Freedom of Information Act, Compliance
KW  - National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342871?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BENEFITS-SHARING+FOR+NATIONAL+PARK+SERVICE+RESEARCH+SCIENTISTS.&rft.title=BENEFITS-SHARING+FOR+NATIONAL+PARK+SERVICE+RESEARCH+SCIENTISTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 11, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36412447; 13113
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36412447?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 11 of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36390052; 13113-080011_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 11
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390052?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 14 of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36390046; 13113-080011_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 14
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390046?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080011/080011_0010.txt of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36389950; 13113-080011_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080011/080011_0010.txt
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389950?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 16 of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36389809; 13113-080011_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 16
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389809?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 5 of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36381616; 13113-080011_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 5
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381616?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 12 of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36381529; 13113-080011_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 12
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381529?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 22 of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36381496; 13113-080011_0022
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 22
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381496?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 8 of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36381124; 13113-080011_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 8
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381124?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 7 of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36381055; 13113-080011_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 7
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381055?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36380977; 13113-080011_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 2
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380977?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 13 of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36380883; 13113-080011_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 13
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380883?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 4 of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36380507; 13113-080011_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 4
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380507?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 3 of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36380430; 13113-080011_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 3
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380430?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 9 of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36380424; 13113-080011_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 9
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380424?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36380307; 13113-080011_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380307?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080011/080011_0020.txt of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36380285; 13113-080011_0020
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20081230//080011/080011_0020.txt
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380285?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 18 of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36380279; 13113-080011_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 18
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380279?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 6 of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36380226; 13113-080011_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 6
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380226?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 19 of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36380012; 13113-080011_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 19
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380012?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 21 of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36379977; 13113-080011_0021
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 21
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379977?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 17 of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36379283; 13113-080011_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 17
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379283?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 15 of 22]
T2  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSTINA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36379232; 13113-080011_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knick Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would become the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. The Erickson Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including subtidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0586D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080011, Final EIS (Volume 1)--691 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--631 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume 1)--741 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--799 pages, CD-ROM, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 15
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-F
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379232?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSTINA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KNIK ARM CROSSING, ANCHORAGE TO MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA.
AN  - 36347746; 12246
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Knik Arm to provide improved access between the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) is proposed. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative ?), are considered in this draft EIS. All of the build alternatives include roadways, a bridge, and a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill. The terminus on the Mat-Su side of Knik Arm is the intersection of Point McKenzie and Burma roads, while the terminus on the Anchorage side is the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet at Third Avenue. The preferred alternative would feature an 8,200-foot-long bridge, pier supported bridge. The bridge approach route on the Mat-Su side would be Point MacKenzie Road, from the intersection with Burma Road south of Port MacKenzie and a northern corridor through the Port District. The Anchorage approach to the bridge would e a cut-and-cover tunnel under Government Hill below either Degan Street of Erickson Street. Either the Degan or Erickson alternative would be come the connection to the Ingra Street-Gambell Street Couplet and, ultimately, to the proposed reconstructed couplet. Construction phasing would be based on traffic demand, beginning with a two-lane facility and resulting ultimately in a four-lane facility by the design year of 2030. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe, efficient access to Anchorage for the residents of Mat-Su, the new road would provide support to the Port of Anchorage expansion project, the Port MacKenzie Development, and several plans for development in the Upper Cook Inlet region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisitions would result in the displacement of small parcels of forested land, sedge and grass habitat, and scrub/shrub vegetation, as well as privately owned parcels and could require the relocation of residences, commercial and industrial units, and nonprofit organizations. Essential fish habitat, including sub-tidal waters and estuarine shores and mudflats, could be displaced. The project could affect three structures of significance in the Government Hill Historic District, one Alaskan Native fish camp, a community dance club, Harvard Park, and Sunset Park. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 060376, 1,112 pages and maps, September 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-06-01-D
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Islands
KW  - Roads
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347746?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KNIK+ARM+CROSSING%2C+ANCHORAGE+TO+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 32 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873126079; 12244-4_0032
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 32
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126079?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 31 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873126071; 12244-4_0031
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 31
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126071?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 30 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873126064; 12244-4_0030
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 30
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126064?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 29 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125943; 12244-4_0029
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 29
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125943?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 28 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125937; 12244-4_0028
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 28
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125937?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 27 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125930; 12244-4_0027
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 27
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125930?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 22 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125922; 12244-4_0022
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 22
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125922?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 21 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125916; 12244-4_0021
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 21
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125916?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 19 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125908; 12244-4_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 19
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125908?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 26 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125822; 12244-4_0026
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 26
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125822?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 25 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125812; 12244-4_0025
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 25
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125812?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 24 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125802; 12244-4_0024
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 24
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125802?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 23 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125774; 12244-4_0023
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 23
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125774?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 20 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125756; 12244-4_0020
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 20
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125756?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 18 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125465; 12244-4_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 18
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125465?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 17 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125463; 12244-4_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 17
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125463?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 16 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125461; 12244-4_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 16
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125461?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 15 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125457; 12244-4_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 15
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125457?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 9 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125231; 12244-4_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 9
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125231?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 8 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125224; 12244-4_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 8
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125224?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 7 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125219; 12244-4_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 7
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125219?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 14 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125217; 12244-4_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 14
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125217?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 13 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125211; 12244-4_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 13
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125211?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 12 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125205; 12244-4_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 12
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125205?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 11 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125188; 12244-4_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 11
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125188?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 10 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125184; 12244-4_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 10
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125184?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125180; 12244-4_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125180?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 5 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125121; 12244-4_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125121?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 4 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125118; 12244-4_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125118?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125113; 12244-4_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125113?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125110; 12244-4_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125110?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 6 of 32]
T2  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 873125107; 12244-4_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125107?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ROAN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA (INCLUDING FORMER NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVES NUMBERS 1 AND 3) RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, GARFIELD AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 36347558; 12241
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the 1984 resource management plan (RMP) for the 73,602-acre Roan Plateau Planning Area of Garfield and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado is proposed. The planning area includes formal Naval Oil Shale Reserves Numbers 1 and 2. The planning area lies north of Interstate 70 between the towns of Rifle and Parachute and includes three ecosystem types, namely, dry semi-desert habitat, mesic, montane and subalpine habitat, and high and mostly unbroken cliffs. The existing RMP has been amended five times since its adoption. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to natural gas resources, wilderness characteristics, livestock grazing, hunting, wildlife habitat, ecological values, visual resources and scenic areas, recreation, transportation planning wild and scenic river eligibility. and special management areas designation. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the existing RMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternatives II through V present differing balances of land se allocations. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative III), the two drainage-based areas of critical environmental concern, Traer/Northwater Creek and East Fork Parachute Creek, would be designated to include primarily the floors of the major drainages. The 29,000-acre Parachute Creek watershed, atop the plateau, would be designated as part of the Parachute Creek Watershed Management Area. Protection of river segments found eligible for inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers would continue pending the conclusion of a suitability study. Resource protection goals would be achieved by applying no ground disturbance and/or site-specific relocation restrictions to more than 60,000 acres as well as five-month timing limitation applied to deer and elk winter range. Rivers would continue pending a suitability study. Roadlessness and naturalness would be protected on 9,006 acres. Motorized and mechanize travel would be restricted to designated routes. The leasing and drilling for oil and gas on nearly 35,000 acres above the rim would be deferred until 80 percent of the anticipated wells below the rim have been completed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would cover the full array of multiple-use activities, including mineral leasing, while maintaining key ecological, visual and recreational values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minor to moderate impacts would be expected to affect vegetation, fish and wildlife (including special status species), visual resources, recreation and travel opportunities, and livestock grazing. Minor impacts would be expected to affect soils, surface water quality, air quality, and cultural resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), National Defense Authorization Act, Transfer Act for Fiscal Year 1998 ("Transfer Act"; P.L. 105-85), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). Resource protection goals would be achieved by applying PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0325D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060371, Volume I-- 397 pages, Volume II--244 pages, Volume III--237 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 06-38
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Roan Plateau Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, Project Authorization of 1998
KW  - Transfer Act, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347558?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROAN+PLATEAU+PLANNING+AREA+%28INCLUDING+FORMER+NAVAL+OIL+SHALE+RESERVES+NUMBERS+1+AND+3%29+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+RIO+BLANCO+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=ROAN+PLATEAU+PLANNING+AREA+%28INCLUDING+FORMER+NAVAL+OIL+SHALE+RESERVES+NUMBERS+1+AND+3%29+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+RIO+BLANCO+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SIERRA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FOLSOM FIELD OFFICE, YUBA, SUTTER, COLUSA, NEVADA, PLACER, EL DORADO, ALPINE, AMADOR, CALAVERAS, SAN JOAQUIN, TUOLUMNE, MARIPOSA, SACRAMENTO, STANISLAUS, AND MERCED COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36343560; 12243
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general resource management plan (RMP) for the Sierra Resource Management Area, administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Yuba, Sutter, Colusa, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, San Joaquin, Tuolumne, Mariposa, Sacramento, Stanislaus, and Merced counties of central California is proposed. The planning area includes 231,386 acres of BLM-managed surface areas and 300,000 additional subsurface mineral estate. Public land is fragmented and dispersed, often in small and irregular parcels and mostly concentrated in river corridors. The area includes approximately 1,000 publicly owned parcels dispersed amongst privately held tracts. Nine BLM assessment areas, based on watershed land uses, have been identified. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative a), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Management areas addressed by all alternatives include those related to designation, expansion, and management of areas of critical environmental concern; designation of wild and scenic river corridors; wilderness study area management; special and extensive recreational management areas stipulations; recreational transportation and access; land tenure adjustments; land use authorizations; land withdrawals and classifications; wildfire and fire ecology; forestry and woodlands; livestock grazing; minerals and energy resources management; visual resources. Like the other alternatives, the preferred alternative (Alternative D) would address each of these management facets with highly specific, delineated acreage allocations and more generalized management stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would lead to land ownership and access patterns that respond to urban growth issues and consolidate BLM land management responsibilities; guide and focus recreational activities; protect significant natural and cultural resource values; and make recommendations regarding the management of important river corridors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Timber harvest and mining and geothermal resources extraction would result in the greatest impacts to vegetation, soils, and water quality and the associated fish and terrestrial wildlife habitat. Road construction, grazing, and recreational site development would also damage habitat, though to a lesser extent. Concentrated recreational uses would conflict with primitive recreational sues, and resource exploitation-related activities would conflict with all coterminous and contiguous recreational sues. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060373, 457 pages and maps, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2006-023+1790
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Geothermal Resources
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - Sierra Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343560?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIERRA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FOLSOM+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+YUBA%2C+SUTTER%2C+COLUSA%2C+NEVADA%2C+PLACER%2C+EL+DORADO%2C+ALPINE%2C+AMADOR%2C+CALAVERAS%2C+SAN+JOAQUIN%2C+TUOLUMNE%2C+MARIPOSA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+STANISLAUS%2C+AND+MERCED+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SIERRA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FOLSOM+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+YUBA%2C+SUTTER%2C+COLUSA%2C+NEVADA%2C+PLACER%2C+EL+DORADO%2C+ALPINE%2C+AMADOR%2C+CALAVERAS%2C+SAN+JOAQUIN%2C+TUOLUMNE%2C+MARIPOSA%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+STANISLAUS%2C+AND+MERCED+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BULL MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST, AND GRAND MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON, DELTA, MESA, GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 36341553; 12244
AB  - PURPOSE: Authorization of a rights-of-way grant and issuance of a temporary use permit for the construction and operation of a 25.5-mile 20-inch-diameter buried natural gas pipeline and related aboveground appurtenances in the Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area and the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison and White River national forests in Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, Garfield counties, Colorado are proposed. Based on current estimates, 8.0 million cubic feet of natural gas would be produced from the 20,000-acre Bull Mountain Unit, which should support 50 to 60 natural gas wells. Current natural gas system operating pressure capacity is not adequate to meet the resulting throughput requirement of pipeline existing system. The proposed pipeline project, known as the Bull Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline, would include an eight-inch-diameter water pipeline within the same 50-foot-wide rights-of-way as the gas pipeline. In addition to the rights-of-way granted by the Bureau of Land management and the U.S. Forest Service, the project would include facilities on private lands approximately 45 miles north of Paonia and 10 miles south of Silt. In addition to the pipeline proposals, the Forest Service proposes to designate the current management areas within and adjacent to the selected pipeline rights-of-way for a width of 100 feet as a utility corridor management area, requiring amendment of the general management plan of each national forest, particularly in the forests' visual resource protection guidelines. In connection with the rights-of-way grant, the BLM and the Forest Service would allow the construction of roads to access the pipeline facilities of construction and maintenance purposes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, soils, air quality, vegetation, noise levels, and big game wildlife habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, would authorize construction and operation of the pipeline as outlined above. The other action alternatives basically provide for alternative pipeline alignments. The rights-of-way would be allowed for 30 years, with an option for renewal of the grant. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The natural pipeline would ensure the availability of transportation capacity necessary to deliver gas from the Bull Mountain Unit to the regional pipeline grids serving markets in the western United States. The water pipeline would deliver water to the unit for pumping into the gas reservoir to assist in the extraction of gas and maintain the subsurface water table. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 309 acres, 154 acres of which would lie within the permanent rights-of-way during pipeline operation. Vegetation, soils, and the associated wildlife habitat would be affected temporarily and permanently and receiving surface waters in the area would suffer short-term sedimentation during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060374, 500 pages, September 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Forests
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Mesa National Forest
KW  - Gunnison National Forest
KW  - Uncompahgre National Forest
KW  - White River National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36341553?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=BULL+MOUNTAIN+NATURAL+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+GLENWOOD+SPRINGS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AND+GRAND+MESA-UNCOMPAHGRE-GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TEAYAWA ENERGY CENTER, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36420045; 9605
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 600-megawatt (MW) (nominal output), natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle energy center, to be known as the Teayawa Energy Center (TEC) on a parcel of Indian Trust Land owned by the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians located in central Riverside County, California are proposed. TEC would be located on 41.5 acres of land. Natural gas would be supplied to the TEC from a southern California intrastate pipeline. A new gas pipeline, extending 12 to 17 miles, would connect TEC to the intrastate gas pipeline system. The preferred natural gas pipeline route extends north from the site within an existing utility corridor to an interconnection point on the nearest natural gas transmission pipeline, located north of Interstate 10. Roughly 4,000 acre-feet of process water would be provided annually to cool the energy center's generators. The preferred water supply for the project would include a connection to the Coachella branch of the All American Canal for cooling water and an onsite groundwater well for potable water and backup cooling water when canal water was unavailable. The center would use a zero liquid discharge system for treatment of process wastewater, including cooling tower blowdown. Cooling water would be cycled approximately 10 to 14 times, depending on water quality, in the cooling tower. Wastewater would be concentrated into a sludge-like consistency and evaporated in onsite ponds. The resulting mineral concentrations in the evaporation ponds would be stored, dried, and eventually hauled offsite for disposal at an appropriate landfill. Sanitary waste would be collected in a storage tank and periodically trucked to an offsite treatment plant or disposed of using a septic tank and leachfield system if soil conditions permit. Electricity produced by the energy center would be transformed up to transmission level voltage at an onsite switchyard that would be interconnected to the double-circuit, 230-kilovolt transmission lines owned by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID); the lines are located immediately east of the proposed site on the eastern edge of the Coachella Canal. To address potential localized transmission system congestion and reliability concerns, the project would also include construction of a new electrical transmission line segment between the site and the IID substation in the city of Coachella. In addition, reconducting and related improvements to several miles of existing offsite transmission lines owned by IID and Southern California Edison (SCE) and situated between the Coachella substation and the SCE grid would be required. Construction would begin in early 2002 and extend approximately 22 months. Operation would begin in late 2003. In addition to the proposed actions, alternatives with respect to pipeline routes, water supply sources, and two No Action Alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. One No Action Alternative assumes that TEC would not be constructed, but, consistent with tribal agricultural zoning, the site would be utilized for growing crops. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide economic benefits to the Torrez Martinez Tribe, the state, and local cities and jurisdictions. Calpine, the applicant, would enter into a long-term lease agreement with the Torrez Martinez Tribe, which would provide direct income to the tribe as well as other direct and indirect benefits. Construction activities would employ 210 persons. Permanent full-time operation would provide for $1.6 million in wages and salaries per year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would expose new structures and persons to existing regional seismic risks. Groundwater withdrawals, combined with withdrawals from other facilities, could result in significant aquifer drawdown, particularly if groundwater were withdrawn for cooling system purposes. Vegetation at the site would be cleared and soils disturbed permanently. LEGAL MANDATES: Archaeological Resource Protection Act, Clean Air Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7411 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 01-0388D, Volume 25, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 020381, 379 pages and maps, September 6, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Cooling Systems
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Seismic Surveys
KW  - Soils
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - California
KW  - Archaeological Resource Protection Act, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Clean Air Act of 1977, Emission standards
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36420045?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEAYAWA+ENERGY+CENTER%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEAYAWA+ENERGY+CENTER%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 6, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH BAJA PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36342632; 12262
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the expansion of the North Baja Pipeline liquefied natural gas (LNG) transportation system between Ehrenberg, Arizona and an interconnection at the Mexican border in Arizona and California is proposed. The existing North Baja system is currently certified to transport 512m500 decatherms per day (Dthd) of natural gas in a southbound direction. Once completed, the proposed expansion would be capable of transporting up to 2.9 million Dthd of natural gas from planned liquefied natural gas storage and vaporization terminals located on the Baja coast in Mexico northward for delivery to customers in California and Arizona. In addition to the new volumes of LNG from the new terminals, the system would continue to offer south bound bas transportation for several existing shippers. The project would involve construction of 79.8 miles of 42- and 48-inch-diameter pipeline loop adjacent to North Baja's existing pipeline in La Paz County, Arizona and Riverside and Imperial counties, California; 20 feet of 36-inch-diameter pipeline to connect the new loop to the SoCal Gas Company system within the proposed Blythe Meter Station site in Riverside County; 0.6 mile of 10-inch-diameter pipeline lateral extending from the Blythe Station to an interconnection with the Blythe Energy Facility I supply pipeline in Riverside County; 45.7 miles of 16-inch-diameter pipeline lateral extending from a point near the existing Ogilvy Meter Station to the existing Imperial Irrigation District (IID) El Centro Generation Station in Imperial County; and modification and installation of a number of other meter stations and provision of other supporting facilities, including a tap for the IID interconnect, three pig launchers, four pig receivers, and 13 remote manual valves. The project would be implemented in three phases beginning in 2007 and ending in 2009. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to expensing the capacity of the North Baja system, the project would provide for northbound delivery of gas from Mexico, helping to ensure the reliability of the energy base in southern California and, thereby, supporting additional economic growth in the region. Construction and operation of the facilities would employ local workers, further boosting the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb desert soils and vegetation over 1,551.5 acres of land, though most disturbance would occur within existing rights-of-way. The system would lie within an area affected by seismic activity and could be damaged by earthquake tremors. Approximately 74.8 acres of farmland and 82.9 acres of woodland would be disturbed and/or displaced. Wildlife habitat to be displaced would include habitat for migratory birds. The project could affect critical habitat for the federally protected Peirson's milk-vetch and the desert tortoise. The pipeline would traverse two perennial water bodies, the Colorado and Alamo rivers, 70 irrigation canals and drains, and 265 desert washes as well as 18 palustrine wetlands. The pipeline would pass within 100 feet of 39 residences and six businesses, and the rights-of-way would cross three special management areas, including one area managed for recreational purposes. Numerous cultural resource sites, many of which are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected by construction and operation of the system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060392, Draft EIS--521 pages. Appendices--477 pages, September 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0200d
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reclamation Plans
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization/
KW  - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342632?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+BAJA+PIPELINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA+AND+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+BAJA+PIPELINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA+AND+CALIFORNIA.&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 - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SPOKANE TRIBE'S INTEGRATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (IRMP) FOR THE SPOKANE INDIAN RESERVATION, STEVENS COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36341768; 12234
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised integrated resource management plan (IRMP) for the land within the jurisdiction of the Spokane Tribe of the Indians, Stevens County, Washington is proposed. The first IRMP was formulated to guide management decisions from 1995 to 2004. Since 1994, several departments have been established and have gained expertise in managing the reservation's resources. On- and off-reservation tribal enrollment has steadily increased, and demands for access to land and natural resources have increased and are, in some cases, competing with one another. The IRMP would outline specific policies for land uses, natural resources, economic development, cultural resources protection and interpretation, and other values across the 157,000-acre Spokane Indian Reservation for the next 10 years. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would focus on resource preservation and cultural values protection. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, would emphasize preservation of all future uses, with outcome-based performance to balance ecological and cultural values against the need for income. The preferred alternative would balance ecological and cultural values with the need for timber-related income until an external source of revenue could be established, primarily off the reservation. The alternative would continue the current level of timber harvest, but include more native plant protection, improved slash treatment and other forest modifications, additions to wildlife areas, and logging with smaller forest openings, allowing for no clearcuts of openings larger than three acres unless it could be demonstrated that large openings are required for forest health reasons. Specific program proposals would address the land base, geologic resources, landscape and aesthetic values preservation, cultural resources preservation and interpretation, groundwater quality and hydrogeology, surface water quality, fisheries, wildlife, ranges, pesticide and hazardous substances protections, agricultural uses, forestry, fire use and control, recreational resources, housing, utilities, general economic development, and the road transportation system. Alternative 4 would emphasize growth and economic development. Alternative 5 would maximize individuals' freedom to develop land and resources within the existing regulatory framework. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed IRMP revision would incorporate new information and new expertise, providing coordination across tribal and federal departments and resources to meet the goals of protecting the tribe's land and resources. More specifically, the plan would preserve cultural values and natural resources to support traditional tribal lifeways; preserve future land use options; retain and expand the land base owned by the tribe; protect the health, security, and general welfare of the tribe; and comply with all tribal and federal regulations. Emphasis would be placed on individual program management plans with clear goals and specific objectives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative use of the resource base, particularly timber harvest, would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and disturb soils, leading periodically to substantial short-term increases in sediment levels in receiving surface waters. Prescribed burning would have similar impacts on soils and vegetation and would result in significant short-term degradation of local air quality.
JF  - EPA number: 060364, 176 pages, August 31, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Fisheries Management
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Housing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Washington
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36341768?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE%27S+INTEGRATED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+%28IRMP%29+FOR+THE+SPOKANE+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+STEVENS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE%27S+INTEGRATED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+%28IRMP%29+FOR+THE+SPOKANE+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+STEVENS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Wellpinit, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 31, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DISPOSITION OF BUREAU OF MINES PROPERTY, TWIN CITIES RESEARCH CENTER MAIN CAMPUS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
AN  - 36342759; 12218
AB  - PURPOSE: The disposition of Bureau of Mines property within the Twin Cities Research Center main campus in Hennepin County, Minnesota is proposed. The 27-acre Center campus, which encompasses 11 buildings, lies near the intersection of State Highway (SH) 62 and SH 55. The buildings, some of which are in various stages of disrepair and are mostly vacant, was used as a storage facility for cores drilled by private companies in their assessments of mineral deposits, primarily in the north-central portion of the country. Three historic districts ad a national historic landmark overlap in the area of the Center. The authorities administering the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) have been designated by Congress to lead public planning to address the disposition of this federal property, which is located on a bluff overlooking the Mississippi River and is within the boundaries of the MNRRA. Congress closed the Center in 1995. The current environmental analysis considers the guidelines of the MNRRA's comprehensive management plan and the rules applied to the geographic area of the Mississippi Corridor Critical Area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives include: 1) transfer of the Center to a university of nonfederal government entity without conditions; 2) transfer of the Center to a university or nonfederal government entity with conditions; and 3) modification of the Center property prior to transfer or retention either with or without conditions being placed on the transfer. The three action alternatives are analyzed by applying three land-use scenarios t each. The land-use scenarios demonstrate a range of potential land uses that could be implemented by the recipient. The scenarios address open space and park uses of the area, use of the center as a training center and/or office park, and emphasizing the interpretation of the natural and historical resources within the site and its surrounding area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Regulated disposal of the Center would allow for its future uses to be coherent with the management planning of the MNRRA and this historic values that surround and overlap the site. New developments would replace a blighted disused federal government property with economically and ecologically viable facilities and land uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition or alteration of buildings on the site would disturb and/or destroy sites of significant historic value in the history of mineral resources development in the upper Midwest. LEGAL MANDATES: Balanced Budget Down Payment Act I of 1996 (P.L. 104-99) and Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134).
JF  - EPA number: 060348, 374 pages, August 18, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: DES 06-37
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Rivers
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Mississippi National River and Recreation Area
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - Balanced Budget Down Payment Act I of 1996, Compliance
KW  - Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342759?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-08-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DISPOSITION+OF+BUREAU+OF+MINES+PROPERTY%2C+TWIN+CITIES+RESEARCH+CENTER+MAIN+CAMPUS%2C+HENNEPIN+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=DISPOSITION+OF+BUREAU+OF+MINES+PROPERTY%2C+TWIN+CITIES+RESEARCH+CENTER+MAIN+CAMPUS%2C+HENNEPIN+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 18, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COTTONWOOD RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, LATAH, NEZ PERCE, LEWIS, IDAHO, AND ADAMS COUNTIES, IDAHO.
AN  - 36351369; 12217
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 non-motorized 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 of 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 draft 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 roadbed 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 060347, Volume I--389 pages, Volume II--346 pages, Volume III--521 pages, Volume IV--Map Supplement, August 17, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
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/36351369?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-08-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COTTONWOOD+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LATAH%2C+NEZ+PERCE%2C+LEWIS%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ADAMS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=COTTONWOOD+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LATAH%2C+NEZ+PERCE%2C+LEWIS%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+ADAMS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cottonwood, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 17, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONSTRUCTION INTO THE POWDER RIVER BASIN, POWDER RIVER BASIN EXPANSION PROJECT, MINNESOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, WYOMING (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 33407 - DAKOTA, MINNESOTA, AND EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION)(FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2001). [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - CONSTRUCTION INTO THE POWDER RIVER BASIN, POWDER RIVER BASIN EXPANSION PROJECT, MINNESOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, WYOMING (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 33407 - DAKOTA, MINNESOTA, AND EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION)(FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2001).
AN  - 873125174; 12209-9_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: Issuance of a permit for the construction and operation of a new rail line and associated facilities in east-central Wyoming, southwest South Dakota, and south-central Minnesota is proposed. The rail line would allow the applicant, Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation (DM&E), to become the third rail carrier to serve Wyoming's Powder River Basin coal mines. The project would involve construction of 280 miles of new line and rehabilitation of 600 miles of existing line. The applicants proposal would include 262.03 miles of new rail line extending from DM&E's existing system near Wasta, South Dakota. The new line would extend generally to the southwest to Edgemont, South Dakota, thence west into Wyoming to connect with existing coal mines located south of Gillette. This portion of the new construction would traverse portions of Custer, Fall River, Jackson, and Pennington counties, South Dakota and Campbell, Converse, Niobrara, and Weston counties, Wyoming. The new rail construction would also include a 13.31-mile line segment at Mankato, Minnesota within Blue Earth and Nicollet counties. DM&E current uses trackage on both sides of Mankato, accessed by trackage rights on rail line operated by the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP). The Mankato construction would provide DM&E direct access between its existing lines and allow DM&E to avoid operational conflicts with UP. The final proposed segment of new rail construction would create a connection between the existing rail systems of DM&E and the I&M Link Railroad. The connection would include construction and operation of approximately 2.94 miles of new rail line near Owatonna, Minnesota in Steele County. To transport coal over the existing system, DM&E would rebuild and upgrade approximately 597.8 miles of rail line along its existing system; 584.95 miles of the rehabilitated track would be along DM&E's mainline between Wasta, South Dakota, and Winona, Minnesota. This upgrade project would cross Winona, Olmstead, Dodge, Steele, Waseca, Nicollet, Blue Earth, Brown, Redwood, Lyon, and Lincoln counties in Minnesota, and Brookings, Kingsbury, Beadle, Hand, Hyde, Hughes, Stanley, Haakon, and Jackson counties in South Dakota. An additional 12.85 miles of existing rail line between Oral and Smithwick, in Fall River County, South Dakota, would also be rebuilt. Rail rehabilitation would include rail and tie replacement, additional sidings, signals, grade crossing improvements, and other system improvements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered with respect to extension of the system in the final EIS of November 2001. Key issues addressed during scoping for this draft supplemental EIS include those related to horn noise, vibration and horn noise synergies, air quality impacts potentially resulting from increased coal consumption in the region serviced by DM&E, and a programmatic agreement governing cultural resources. Alternative B would call for new construction to occur along the Cheyenne River. Alternative C would avoid new construction in sensitive areas in South Dakota and Wyoming. Alternative D would reconstruct the existing line through Rapid City to Smithwick, provide for new construction to Edgemont, and continue with construction adjacent to the existing rail bed through Newcastle and Moorcroft. As numerous federal and state agencies are involved in the decision regarding choice of a preferred alternative, a number of preferences have been forwarded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of a third rail carrier to serve the Powder River Basin would increase the efficiency of the movement of coal eastward from the basin. The new rail line would also increase the operational efficiency of DM&E's existing rail line in Minnesota and South Dakota. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the rail system would affect geology and soils, surface water and wetlands, groundwater, vegetation, agricultural land and operations, residential and commercial land uses, public land uses, cultural resources, recreation resources, environmental justice with respect to disadvantaged populations and minorities and the elderly, ranching, traditional Native American tribal cultural properties and other cultural resources, visual aesthetics. air quality, certain threatened and endangered species, and safety, including emergency vehicle response times. System operation would result in the generation of noise and vibration. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (49 U.S.C. 10901), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0440D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 02-0073F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 05-0683D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060339, Final Supplemental EIS--307 pages, Replacement Pages--134 pages, August 10, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Coal
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Wyoming
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
KW  - Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125174?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSTRUCTION+INTO+THE+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN%2C+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%2C+WYOMING+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+33407+-+DAKOTA%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+AND+EASTERN+RAILROAD+CORPORATION%29%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2001%29.&rft.title=CONSTRUCTION+INTO+THE+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN%2C+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%2C+WYOMING+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+33407+-+DAKOTA%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+AND+EASTERN+RAILROAD+CORPORATION%29%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2001%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 - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 10, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NON-NATIVE DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE AND GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - NON-NATIVE DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE AND GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 756824953; 12206-060336_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to manage populations of non-native deer within the Point Reyes National Seashore and Golden Gate National Recreation Area, both located in the San Francisco metropolitan area of California, is proposed. Two species, axis deer and fallow deer, would be targeted. The current populations of axis and fallow deer are 250 and 860, respectively. In its 2001 management policies statement, the National Park Service (NPS) instructed parks to re-establish natural functions and processes in human-disturbed components of natural systems. In the same section of the statement, non-native species are included in human-caused disturbances that have severe impacts on natural biota and ecosystems. The non-native deer at the Seashore have resulted in competition with and displacement of native tule elk and black-tailed deer, the potential for increased disease transmission to native ungulates, and damage to riparian habitat and presumable to the native wildlife dependent on this habitat. Fallow deer have been known to cause reductions or local extinctions of small mammal populations fallow and axis deer also affect Seashore ranchers by damaging fences and depredation of livestock pastures and supplemental livestock feed. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The alternatives differ primarily in their approach to deer population control and the desired future number of deer. Alternatives B and C would control numbers of both target species at a pre-determinate level of 350 individuals for each species using lethal removal alone or in combination with long-acting contraceptives. Alternative D would strive for the complete long-term eradication of both species from the Seashore by 2021 via lethal removal. A number of alternatives calling for relocation, fencing, hunting, contraception, and/or research were considered but rejected. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would involve removal of all nonnative deer by 2021 via a combination of lethal removal and fertility control. Culling would implemented by sharpshooters. Deer carcasses would be given to charities that provide food for the poor or left to degrade such that nutrients would be recycled into the environment. Monitoring activities would continue until all non-native deer are eradicated. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The eradication plan would assist the NPS in the restoration of native ecosystems within the park, prevent the spread of non-native deer into surrounding private and public lands, and address adverse impacts to agricultural permittees within the Seashore. Species of special concern provided protection against deer encroachment into their habitat would include northern spotted owl, western snowy plover, California red-legged frog Coho salmon and steelhead trout, California freshwater shrimp, Myrtle's silver spot butterfly, and a variety of plants. Human health and safety be benefited due to the elimination of collisions between automobiles and targeted deer. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The adverse effects of non-native deer on soils, water resources, vegetation, wildlife, and special status species would continue for the 15-year implementation period. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0344D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060336, 300 pages, August 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Livestock
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Safety
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Golden Gate National Recreation Area
KW  - Point Reyes National Seashore
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824953?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-08-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NON-NATIVE+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+AND+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NON-NATIVE+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+AND+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NON-NATIVE DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE AND GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - NON-NATIVE DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE AND GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 756824879; 12206-060336_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to manage populations of non-native deer within the Point Reyes National Seashore and Golden Gate National Recreation Area, both located in the San Francisco metropolitan area of California, is proposed. Two species, axis deer and fallow deer, would be targeted. The current populations of axis and fallow deer are 250 and 860, respectively. In its 2001 management policies statement, the National Park Service (NPS) instructed parks to re-establish natural functions and processes in human-disturbed components of natural systems. In the same section of the statement, non-native species are included in human-caused disturbances that have severe impacts on natural biota and ecosystems. The non-native deer at the Seashore have resulted in competition with and displacement of native tule elk and black-tailed deer, the potential for increased disease transmission to native ungulates, and damage to riparian habitat and presumable to the native wildlife dependent on this habitat. Fallow deer have been known to cause reductions or local extinctions of small mammal populations fallow and axis deer also affect Seashore ranchers by damaging fences and depredation of livestock pastures and supplemental livestock feed. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The alternatives differ primarily in their approach to deer population control and the desired future number of deer. Alternatives B and C would control numbers of both target species at a pre-determinate level of 350 individuals for each species using lethal removal alone or in combination with long-acting contraceptives. Alternative D would strive for the complete long-term eradication of both species from the Seashore by 2021 via lethal removal. A number of alternatives calling for relocation, fencing, hunting, contraception, and/or research were considered but rejected. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would involve removal of all nonnative deer by 2021 via a combination of lethal removal and fertility control. Culling would implemented by sharpshooters. Deer carcasses would be given to charities that provide food for the poor or left to degrade such that nutrients would be recycled into the environment. Monitoring activities would continue until all non-native deer are eradicated. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The eradication plan would assist the NPS in the restoration of native ecosystems within the park, prevent the spread of non-native deer into surrounding private and public lands, and address adverse impacts to agricultural permittees within the Seashore. Species of special concern provided protection against deer encroachment into their habitat would include northern spotted owl, western snowy plover, California red-legged frog Coho salmon and steelhead trout, California freshwater shrimp, Myrtle's silver spot butterfly, and a variety of plants. Human health and safety be benefited due to the elimination of collisions between automobiles and targeted deer. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The adverse effects of non-native deer on soils, water resources, vegetation, wildlife, and special status species would continue for the 15-year implementation period. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0344D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060336, 300 pages, August 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Livestock
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Safety
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Golden Gate National Recreation Area
KW  - Point Reyes National Seashore
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824879?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-08-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NON-NATIVE+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+AND+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NON-NATIVE+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+AND+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - HELLS CANYON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, IDAHO AND OREGON (FERC PROJECT NO. 1971-079).
AN  - 36351316; 12195
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a license for the continued operation of Idaho Power Company's 1.167-megawatt (MW) Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Project, located on the Snake River in Washington and Adams counties, Idaho and Wallowa and Baker counties, Oregon, is proposed. The project consists of three developments, namely dams, reservoirs, and powerhouses, on the segment of the Snake River forming the border between Idaho and Oregon. The three developments are known as Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon, also of which are reservoirs impounded by dams, with the associated power generation facilities. In addition to hydropower, the dams provide flood control storage and water quality and fishery enhancement releases. The project also includes transmission facilities, fish hatcheries and related facilities, and recreational facilities. Project lands lie within the Payette National Forest, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, and lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. This draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the project would continue to operate under current license conditions, the applicant's proposal, and the proposal with recommended alterations stipulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (NERC). The applicant's proposal would provide for continued operation of all three components of the project, largely adhering to operating constraints established under the existing license with the addition of 81 environmental enhancement measures to address water quality improvement, improvement of hatchery facilities, protection of fall Chinook salmon, improvement of the white sturgeon population, introduction of native salmonids into project tributaries, protection of resident warm-water fish, acquisition and improvement of 22,761 acres of upland and 821 acres of riparian habitat to benefit wildlife, noxious weed control, protection and interpretation of archaeological and historic resources, improvement of recreational sites and facilities, and improvement of the appearance of project facilities to minimize visual contrast with the environment. Under the NERC alternative, all of the applicant's proposal would be included in the new license, which would also include stricter reservoir refill targets after the flood control season, augmentation of releases for enhancement of juvenile fall Chinook salmon migration conditions, additional ramping restrictions during the fall Chinook rearing period, and warm-water is spawning protection levels in the Brownlee Reservoir. Under the applicant's proposal, the Hells Canyon Project would generate 6.6 million MW-hours (MWH) and provide a net annual benefit of $304.7 million. The FERC alternative would generate 6.5 MWH per year and provide a net annual benefit of $288.8 million, POSITIVE IMPACTS: The hydroelectric project would continue to provide power to 430,000 customers in Idaho and Oregon and to support system reliability. The continued use of hydropower would provide a renewable energy resources to displace electricity generated by the burning of fossil fuels, thereby, reducing air quality impacts of fossil fuel generation. Temperature controls through release FERC release stipulations would reduce the impact of water temperatures in reservoir releases to a point at which no impact on Chinook salmon and other fish downstream of the dam would be expected. Dissolved oxygen levels would improve significantly downstream of the Hells Canyon Dam. Acquisition of terrestrial habitat and habitat enhancement measures would provide additional protection to rare plant species as well as animal wildlife. Cultural resources. The reservoirs would continue to provide opportunities for flat water recreationists. Flow augmentation under the FERC proposal would provide more stabilized flows for river boaters. Cultural resources would receive additional protection and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the applicant's proposal water temperatures would be cooler in the spring and summer and warm in the fall and winter than optimal temperature in these seasons, resulting in reduced salmon populations and increased on those salmon who use the river as spawning habitat. Under the proposal, TDG levels downstream would continue to exceed the 110-percent saturation criterion during virtually all spill conditions, increasing the likelihood of gas bubble trauma (GBT). Under the FERC proposal TGD exceedances and the likelihood of GBT would increase slightly in early to mid-June in medium-high and extremely high flow years. Dissolved oxygen supplementation would be improved under either proposal, but the FERC recommendations would provide for greater improvement. Drawdowns of the Brownlee Reservoir under the applicant's proposal would continue to mar lake aesthetics. Either relicensing proposal could result in rate increases for electricity consumers; the impact of the FERC proposal would be greater than that of the applicant's proposal. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060325, Volume I--577 pages, Volume II--331 pages, July 28, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/DEIS-0199D
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fish Hatcheries
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Payette National Forest,
KW  - Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
KW  - Hells Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Snake River
KW  - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance
KW  - Federal Power Act of 1920, Licensing
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351316?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HELLS+CANYON+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+IDAHO+AND+OREGON+%28FERC+PROJECT+NO.+1971-079%29.&rft.title=HELLS+CANYON+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+IDAHO+AND+OREGON+%28FERC+PROJECT+NO.+1971-079%29.&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 - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 28, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTHERN SAN JUAN BASIN COAL BED METHANE PROJECT, LA PLATA AND ARCHULETA COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 36351295; 12192
AB  - PURPOSE: The drilling of approximately 300 new coal bed methane (CBM) wells within the 125,000-acre Northern San Juan Basin CBM Project area in La Plata and Archuleta countries, Colorado is proposed. Six companies have proposed to drill the CBM wills and construct ancillary facilities needed to support these wells, which would lie within the San Juan National Forest as well as on land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. These facilities would include access roads; pipelines for gathering gas and produced water; electric facilities; facilities for measuring and compressing gas; and facilities for treating, containing, and disposing of produced water using deep underground injection. The companies proposal would include directional drilling to avoid steep sloped in portions of the HD Mountains where feasible. The overall life of the project, including construction, production, and reclamation, would extend approximately 40 years. Construction of well site facilities would begin during 2005 and would continue for five years. The productive life of each well would be expected to be 25 to 30 years. Accordingly, production from the wells drilled at the end of the five-year period would be expected to conclude by 2040. Five alternatives, including the proposed Action (Alternative 1) and the No Action Alternative (Alternative 5), are considered in this final EIS. The Agency's newly preferred alternative has been identified as Alternative 7. This alternative would result in the development of 127 wells pads, providing sites for 138 wells supported by as well as 72 miles of associated access road. The resulting permitting activities would allow the companies to develop wells on federal mineral estate. One produced water disposal well would be required. Six miles of trunk pipelines and five compressor station would provide for delivery of the methane to the regional pipeline network. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Access to the gas reservoir under federal lands would allow the permit applicants to exploit these resources, thereby contributing to the energy reserves of the national and reducing the country's dependence on foreign sources of energy. The projects would employ over 900 workers and otherwise contribute to the local economies in the vicinity of the project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Methane seepage at the Fruitland Formation outcrop could impact aquifers and surface water, endanger human health and safety, degrade soil quality and damage vegetation, release greenhouse gases, and contain dangerous levels of hydrogen sulfide, which would further exacerbate damages to the natural and human environment. Surface disturbances would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including forest vegetation and habitat for federally protected species; result in erosion and sedimentation of receiving waters; and increase the risk of landslides. Depressurizing the coal seam due to removal of water could create conditions by which water would be replaced by oxygen, thereby raising the risk of spontaneous coal fires. Dewatering activities would also reduce the amount of Fruitland formation recharge of local rivers. Historic and prehistoric resource sites could be disturbed or destroyed. The recreational value of the area would be marred visually and by noise and the presence of non-recreationists LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Materials and Minerals, Policy, Research, and Development Act of 1980. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0008F, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 060322, Volume I--621 pages and maps, Volume II-455 pages and maps, Volume III--498 pages and maps, July 27, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Coal
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Fires
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - San Juan National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
KW  - National Materials and Minerals, Policy, Research, and Development Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351295?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHERN+SAN+JUAN+BASIN+COAL+BED+METHANE+PROJECT%2C+LA+PLATA+AND+ARCHULETA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=NORTHERN+SAN+JUAN+BASIN+COAL+BED+METHANE+PROJECT%2C+LA+PLATA+AND+ARCHULETA+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, San Juan, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 27, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS.
AN  - 36344373; 12189
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for Pea Ridge National Military Park near the city of Pea Ridge, Arkansas is proposed. In March 1862, the Union Army of the Southwest, led by Brigadier General Samuel Curtis, defeated the Confederate Army of the West under the commend of Major General Earl Van Dorn in a bloody two-day battle at Pea Ridge. This decisive victory permanently turned the tide of the Civil War west of the Mississippi, ensured that Missouri would remain in the Union, and freed Union forces for the campaign to take control of the lower Mississippi River. Pea Ridge National Military Park was established on July 20, 1956, to commemorate the battle and preserve the site of the battle, the largest Civil War engagement west of the Mississippi River. The 4,300-acre park encompasses nearly 90 percent of the actual battle field. Its numerous resources include archaeological sites, historic sites, structures, site-specific collections, and cultural landscape features associated with the battle and the agrarian community once found at Pea Ridge. The proposed general management plan would direct management of the park for the next 15 to 20 years. Key issues addressed during scoping include those related to evolving visitor use, highways traversing the park, minimal visitor access to the Union earthworks, the potential establishment of trails throughout the park, park boundary adjustments, and regional population growth that has the potential to affect visitation levels and place stress on park resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would provide for the widest range of opportunities. Key battle areas would be the focus of visitor experience. A variety of chooses would be provided with respect to the type, intensity, and duration of their experiences., guided by a variety of interpretive programs and media. The area would be rezoned and a visitor center would be provided. The tour road would provide access to the center of the Leetown Battlefield, follow the present route over Elkhorn Mountain, and return to the new visitor center in the Southern western corner of the park. Telegraph Road would be restored to its historic conditions, and Ford Road would be rehabilitated as a trail. Arkansas 72 would be rerouted outside the park boundary. Initial and annual costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $2.2 million and $1.75 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to preserving the valuable historic resources within the park, the management plan would ensure proper public interpretation of the battle, its context, and its consequences. Increased visitation would boost the local economy. The vegetative management program would reduce competition and improve the habitat for the Ozark chinquapin, a state special status species. Boundary modifications would add 300 acres to the park, allowing the restoration of plant communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some developments would affect the cultural landscape, and increased visitation would place stress on the carrying capacity of the park, degrade the interpretive experience for some, and increase the possibility of inadvertent damage and vandalism. Some Ozark chinquapin habitat would be lost or degraded. Relocation of Arkansas 72 out of the park would restore historic drainage patterns, opening the possibility of the restoration of 100 acres of wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0008D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 060319, 148 pages, July 26, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 05-66
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Highways
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - Museums
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arkansas
KW  - Pea Ridge National Military Park
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344373?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-07-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PEA+RIDGE+NATIONAL+MILITARY+PARK%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.title=PEA+RIDGE+NATIONAL+MILITARY+PARK%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Pea Ridge, Arkansas; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 26, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LONG-TERM MISCELLANEOUS PURPOSES CONTRACT, [CARLSBAD WATER SUPPLY PROJECT], EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 36347818; 12180
AB  - PURPOSE: The conclusion of a long-term (40-year) miscellaneous purposes contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and Carlsbad Irrigation District (CID) is proposed to allow the use of Carlsbad Project water for purposes other than irrigation in the area served by the CID in New Mexico. THE CID operates the Carlsbad Project to provide water for CID users authorized to obtain water to irrigate 25,055 acres of land, with 70 p 80 percent of the authorized land receiving irrigation water each year. In 1948, New Mexico and Texas entered into the Pecos River Compact, upon which Texas filed a successful suit before the U.S. Supreme Court resulting in a decision prohibiting New Mexico from falling short in its deliveries of water across the New Mexico-Texas border. Reclamation and the CID have entered into three previous short-term miscellaneous purposes contracts. In 2003, the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, Reclamation, CID, and Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District entered into a settlement agreement that resolves water rights litigation, implements a plan to ensure delivery of water to the CID and state line, and settles many other water management issues related to the Pecos River. The agreement requires Reclamation and the CID to enter into the proposed long-term (40-year) contract to allow the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission to use Carlsbad project water for miscellaneous purposes, specifically, delivery to the state line. The currently proposed long-term miscellaneous purposes contract would allow the Commission to use up to 50,000 acre-feet of project water per year for delivery to Texas. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The long-term contract would partially fulfill the settlement agreement. The water would be used to maintain long-term compliance with the Pecos River Compact and the Texas versus New Mexico Amended Decree of the U.S. Supreme Court. Pecos River flow augmentation would substantially improve water quality and aquatic habitat, as well as increasing recreational opportunities, in the river below Avalon Dam and at Red Bluff gauge. Emergent wetland vegetation would benefit. Priority calls for water, under the settlement agreement, would be less likely, resulting in fewer socioeconomic disturbances. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: CID Main Canal flows would decline after 2009, reducing project efficiency. Base flows into the Pecos River would decline as well. Emergent wetland vegetation would suffer accordingly. Crop revenue for CID users would decline $492,000 annually after 2009. LEGAL MANDATES: Sale of Water for Miscellaneous Purposes Act of 1920 PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0116F, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 060310, 225 pages, July 21, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 06-19
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Pecos River
KW  - Texas
KW  - Sale of Water for Miscellaneous Purposes Act of 1920, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347818?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-07-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LONG-TERM+MISCELLANEOUS+PURPOSES+CONTRACT%2C+%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=LONG-TERM+MISCELLANEOUS+PURPOSES+CONTRACT%2C+%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 21, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE KERR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, FLATHEAD LAKE, MONTANA.
AN  - 36347398; 12183
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a drought management plan in association with the Kerr Hydroelectric Project in Flathead Lake in Montana is proposed. The project currently operates under a joint license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 1985 to the Montana Power Company (MPC) and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT). In 1999, the license was transferred from MPC to the current operator, PPL Montana LLC. The license, as amended, provides CSKT with an option to take the project over in 2015. Article 4(e) of the Federal Power Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to place conditions in hydropower licenses that are "necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of reservations within the department's jurisdiction, including Indian reservations. The Secretary's section 4(e) conditions in the Kerr Project license include Article 56, which sets forth minimum in stream flow requirements that mandate prescribed flows from the Kerr Project into the lower Flathead River downstream of the project. In addition to the Secretary's 4(e) conditions, Article 43 of the license requires the operate to regulate Flathead Lake in accordance with a 1962 memorandum of understanding (MOU), as amended in 1965, between the MPC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The MOU provides for flood control by drawing Flathead Lake down every spring as well as for supporting recreational, tourism, and associated activities on the lake by refilling the lake in time for the summer season. During low-water years, there can be an insufficient volume of water to achieve Article 43 lake levels, while maintaining the minimum in stream flow requirements of Article 56, which sets forth minimum in stream flow requirements downstream of the project. This situation is covered by Article 60 of the license, which requires the development of a drought management plan. Key issues identified during scoping for the EIS process include those related to rapid regional growth, Hungry Horse Dam flood control and fish operations, the Pacific Northwest Coordinating Agreement, the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project, a new domestic water treatment plant, and upgrades to Kerr Hydroelectric Project turbines. The proposed drought management plan would use a tiered approach consisting of changes to the operation of the Kerr Project over an annual timeframe. The plan would set an annual end-of-December lake elevation of 2,888 feet; analyze runoff predictions and prepare monthly operating curves in consultation with various agencies; revise the target lake elevation from 2,893 feet to 2,892 feet for the recreation season from June 15 to September 1 when the system was declared to be under drought conditions; and achieve and maintain a reduced summer pool elevation of 2,892 feet conditions, if the 2,892-foot elevation was not achievable and maintainable under drought conditions. The fourth provision would involve modifying the Article 56 minimum in stream flows to maintain an elevation of 2892 feet between June 15 and September 1 by matching inflows to outflows. If that was not possible, the plan would provide for increasing the flow from Hungary Horse Reservoir to maintain the 2,892-foot elevation from June 15 through September 1. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives. Alternative 1 would require an annual hydroclimate reviews for October through December and January through April; tribal coordination for all decisions; a lake drawdown exception to allow deviation from the provisions of Article 43 to achieve a minimum lake level of 2,888 feet from December 31 though April 15; a lake refill exception from April 15 t June 15 when the drought management plan was activated, to maintain lake elevations as high as flood control conditions allowed; prohibition of minimum in stream flow divisions; and an attempt to attain a June 15 lake elevation no lower than 2,8922.2 feet and higher if possible from June 16 to September 15. Alternative 2 would be identical to Alternative 1, except that based on runoff predictions, obtained no later than April 10, the licensee would either deactivate and drought management plan, maintain the drought management plan without a division from the minimum in stream flow requirements of Article 56, or submit a notice of intent to the Secretary to deviate from the minimum in stream flow requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would ensure the provision of water for ecological support of the local biota and for Native American uses, including drinking and irrigation water. The social and economic conditions of the area and the environmental condition of the river downstream of the dam would be enhanced inasmuch as possible, protecting water quality and fish habitat.. The dam and reservoir would continue to provide adequate flood control, protecting farmland, habitat, and human developments on the downstream floodplain. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Unavoidable adverse impacts would arise from the fact that, under drought conditions, license requirements related to lake levels and minimum in stream flows could not both be met. Each alternative would result in impacts associated with deviations from these requirements. All alternatives would result in lower lake levels under severe drought conditions. All alternatives, excepting Alternative 1, would establish revised lake elevation targets for the summer months. The only alternative that would avoid the potential for impacts to the Flathead River below Keer Dam from minimum in stream flow deviations would be Alternative 1. Reservoir and downstream river surface level fluctuations would damage banks and resources on and under bank surfaces and result in mudflats, particularly around the lake, during low water periods. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060313, 397 pages, July 21, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Climatologic Assessments
KW  - Dams
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Flathead Lake
KW  - Flathead River
KW  - Montana
KW  - Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347398?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-07-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DROUGHT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+KERR+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+FLATHEAD+LAKE%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=DROUGHT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+KERR+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+FLATHEAD+LAKE%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 21, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UTAH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, NEW MUSEUM FACILITY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH.
AN  - 36343037; 12181
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a new Utah Museum of Natural History at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah are proposed. The existing museum, which opened in 1969 in the old University Library n President's Circle, serves as the principal repository for archaeological and vertebrate paleontological specimens recovered on public lands in Utah and protects and displays the collections it holds in trust. The collections include more than one million archaeological, paleontological, zoological, geological, and botanical objects. The museum curators and the University of Utah began planning for a new museum site in the 1990's to address short comings of facility size, flexibility, and standards for museum collection suitability. After consideration of several potential locations, a site was selected for a new museum in Research Park adjacent o0t the Red Butte Garden and Arboretum. In February 1997, the sites was reserved by the university for use by the museum. In June 1999, the university approved a partially adjacent 487-acre conservation easement, known as the Utah Heritage Preserve. Private grants and a Congressional funding authorization in 2002 were successful solicited for the construction of a new museum at the site. Issues identified during scoping include those related to vegetation, wildlife, visitor experience, visual quality and open space preservation, traffic and transportation, socioeconomics, surface flows and groundwater, soils, and public health and safety. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative C), the university proposes to build and operate a new museum on a 17-acre site adjacent to Red Butte Garden, part of the Foothill Cultural District. The museum would include a 169,000-square-foot building, associated parking and appurtenances, access ways, and landscaping. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The museum would be moved from its superannuated, 21-year-old existing building, designed as a library, to a new state-of-the-art, purpose-built museum facility. The new facility would assure enhanced interpretation and preservation of its growing collections, enhance research and education opportunities offered by the museum, improve the visitor experience, and help0 meet objectives to better connect the Utah landscape, offer state-of-the-art research and learning facilities, maintain proximity to the university campus, create new ways to communicate with its audience, continue outreach to families and schools, expand economic contributions to Salt Lake City and the region, attract tourists, expand the social and scientific impact of the facility, assure the integrity of the museum's collections, and improve accessibility for the general public. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives would result in adverse impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, the visual quality of the foothill landscape, the availability of open space, traffic volumes, and storm water runoff. Mule deer habitat would be particularly affected, though the impacts would not be excessively damaging. LEGAL MANDATES: Utah Public Lands Preservation Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-329).
JF  - EPA number: 060311, pages, July 21, 2006
PY  - 2006
EP  - ages, July 21
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Agency number: DES 06-31
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Easements
KW  - Museums
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Utah
KW  - Utah Public Lands Preservation Act of 2002, Funding
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343037?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-07-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=ages&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UTAH+MUSEUM+OF+NATURAL+HISTORY%2C+NEW+MUSEUM+FACILITY+AT+THE+UNIVERSITY+OF+UTAH%2C+SALT+LAKE+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=UTAH+MUSEUM+OF+NATURAL+HISTORY%2C+NEW+MUSEUM+FACILITY+AT+THE+UNIVERSITY+OF+UTAH%2C+SALT+LAKE+CITY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 21, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MINIDOKA INTERNMENT NATIONAL MONUMENT, IDAHO.
AN  - 36346155; 12171
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Minidoka Internment National Monument, Idaho is proposed. The 73-acre tract, which is the site of the former Minidoka Relocation Center, has recently been designated as a National Park Service Monument, would be administered for the next 15 to 20 years using plan direction. The center is a nationally significant site related to human and civil rights and American history. The site continues to evoke vivid memories and strong emotions from Nikkei who were incarcerated there some 60 years ago during World War II. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resource preservation, education and interpretation, visitor use facilities, partnerships and outreach, borders and adjacent lands, operations and management, and access, circulation, and parking. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this abbreviated final EIS, which includes the draft EIS and corrections and revisions of the draft, and documentation of public involvement in the EIS process. The preferred alternative (Alternative C), which emphasizes on-site education and interpretation and cultural resource protection through rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction, would provide recommendations about land acquisition and expansion of the monument boundaries. The acquisition of 12 acres would be necessary to accommodate administrative facilities and essential operations. An additional 128 acres to the north of the present northern boundary would be critical to obtaining control over a barracks block site, which is necessary to carry out the national monument's mandate of telling the full story of the internment and incarceration of Japanese-Americans at Minidoka. A complete residential block would be relocated to its original location, and the camp's original landfill would be administratively transferred from the Bureau of Land Management to the National Park Service (NPS). The residential block would become the cornerstone of interpretive services and facilities. Alternative C would employ a variety of preservation techniques, such as delineation, stabilization, restoration, rehabilitation, and reconstruction, to protect and enhance historic resources at the site. Off-site visitor education and interpretation would be conducted through a diversity of comprehensive programs developed in cooperation with partners, including school districts, museums, and educational and legacy organizations and institutions. Peak daily visitation would be 900. The plan would incorporate stipulations for improved visitor facilities, 10 permanent staff and two seasonal staff, increased staffing, and modified, distributed parking, access, and circulation. Capital development costs are estimated at $7.725 million to $7.75 million. Annual operations are estimated at $1.1 million to $1.25 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would preserve, protect, and interpret this valuable resource and remind Americans of the civil rights violation suffered by the Japanese-Americans in California and elsewhere in the United States. The proposed expansion would provide the best option for addressing concerns that impact local lifestyles and the national monument's neighbors and their living conditions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A substantial increase in visitation would result in minor erosion of archaeological resources and increased vandalism and theft. Development of an overlook, parking, and possible memorial on a nine-acre site would affect a few archaeological resource sites. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060301, Final EIS--96 pages (oversize), Draft EIS--257 pages (oversize, July 17, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Prisons
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Minidoka Internment National Monument
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346155?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-07-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MINIDOKA+INTERNMENT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=MINIDOKA+INTERNMENT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Hagerman, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 17, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FORT KING NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK, OCALA, FLORIDA.
AN  - 36342902; 12172
AB  - PURPOSE: A special resource study is presented with respect to the designation and management of the proposed Fort King National Historic Landmark in Ocala, Florida. Fort King was originally constructed o support federal troops enforcing conditions of the 1823 Treaty of Moultrie Creek, which restricted Florida native Americans to reservation lands and prohibited all but authorized persons from entering the designated lands. With the passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1930, U.S. policy concerning Native Americans living east of the Mississippi changed from containment to forced removal. After a two attacks by Seminoles on federal agents and troops in Florida, the military abandoned the fort in 1936 and the unoccupied facility was burned by the Seminoles. A new fort was constructed in 1837 and, thereafter, 1,500 U.S. soldiers were killed during the Second Seminole War, which continued until 1842. Subsequently, more than 4,000 Seminoles and Black Seminoles were removed west of the Mississippi, while 600 Seminoles avoided removal by strategically retreating into the wetland areas of southern Florida. Fort King played an important military role throughout the Second Seminole War by serving as a council site for negotiations between Seminoles and the U.S. Government and as headquarters for the U.S. Army of the South. Newly proposed park areas are typically added to the National park System by an act of Congress. However, before Congress decides to create a new park, it needs to know whether the area's resources meet established criteria for designation. The National Park Service is often tasked by Congress to evaluate a potential new are for compliance with these criteria and document its findings in a special resource study. Four management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue current management practices in the area, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B, which has been identified as the environmentally preferred and most effective and efficient alternative, would highlight the site's archaeological resources by preserving and interpreting them in-situ. This alternative would take a conservative approach to site development that favored a simple and low-cost implementation strategy. Alternative C would highlight the site's archaeological and historic themes. Existing site infrastructure would be used as a basis to provide public access and interpretive services an a quick, efficient manner. This alternative strategy would favor a development strategy that would build upon a modest initial investment that could be expanded over time as additional funding and resources were secured. Alternative D would focus on Fort King's strong association with nationally significant historical events and interpretive themes. This alternative would take an ambitious approach to site development. The initial investment in cultural landscape rehabilitation and contemporary visitor service infrastructure would establish the name recognition and credibility needed to attract high-profile partners and compete for private and public financing. Costs for infrastructure development under the preferred alternative are estimated at $200,000 to $275,000, while annual operating cost estimates range from $20,000 to $25,000 over the first five years, $30,00 to $40,000 over the second five years, and $40,000 to $50,000 over the following 10 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would improve visitor experience significantly and result in the long-term preservation of a the most significant aspects of and resources associated with the fort site and its surroundings. Small economic benefits would redound due to a slight increase in visitation to what would be largely a local cultural and historic attraction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, no full time staff would be available to monitor site resources. The volume of excavation associated with construction activities would pose a greater risk of disturbing unknown archaeological remains and natural resources than the No Action Alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Omnibus Parks Management Act of 1988 (Public 105-391), and Public Law 105-113. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0095D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 060302, 111 pages, July 17, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 06-27
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Florida
KW  - Fort King National Historic Landmark
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Omnibus Parks Management Act of 1988, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 105-113, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342902?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-07-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+KING+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+LANDMARK%2C+OCALA%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FORT+KING+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+LANDMARK%2C+OCALA%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Florida; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-05-08
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 17, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CASPER FIELD OFFICE PLANNING AREA, NATRONA, CONVERSE, GOSHEN, AND PLATTE COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 36339604; 12164
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan for the 8.5-million-acre Casper Office Planning Area of Natrona, Converse, Goshen, and Platte counties in east-central Wyoming is proposed. Within the Casper planning area, the Bureau of Land Management administers approximately 1.4 million acres of public land surface and 4.7 million acres of federal mineral estate. The existing management plan, known as the Platte River Resource Management Plan, was established in 1985. Planning issues identified during scoping include those related to energy and mineral resource development, vegetation and habitat management, land ownership adjustments, access and transportation, and special area designations. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize conservation of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the lowest level of development. Alternative C would provide for more conservation and less resource development than the current management regime, falling between alternatives B and D relative to resource conservation and resource development. Alternative D would emphasize resource development, while providing for he lowest level of protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would retain the existing Jackson Canyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), eliminate the Salt Creek ACEC, and establish the Alcova Fossil ACEC for paleontological resource protection and research. Alternative E would also establish the Bates Hale, Sand Hills, and South Bighorn/Red Wall special management areas (SMAs), with an emphasis on resource conservation, and the Salt Creek and Wind River Basin SMAs with an emphasis on oil and gas development. Although Alternative E would manage intact, contiguous blocks of native vegetation to minimize habitat fragmentation, the blocks would be smaller than those under alternatives B or C. Relative to current management, Alternative E would place more restrictions on off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, livestock grazing, wind-energy development, and leasing for oil and gas and solid leasable minerals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide comprehensive management direction for the planning area by making land use decisions for all appropriate resources and resource uses administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The plan would retain the management flexibility necessary to adapt t new and emerging issues and opportunities and provide for adjustments to decisions over time based on new information and monitoring. The plan would be compatible with existing plans and policies of adjacent local, state, tribal, and federal agencies and consistent with federal law, regulations and agency policy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface-disturbing activities would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, alter soil composition and yield, stir up fugitive dust, release exhaust emissions and smoke into the atmosphere, and degrade landscape aesthetics; such activities would include construction of well pads and roads, pits and reservoirs, pipelines and power lines, mining, vegetation treatments, OHV use, fire management and ecological restoration interventions, some recreational uses. Protection of some resource values would impeder prevent access to other resource values that could otherwise be exploited effectively for economic gain. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060295, Draft EIS--686 pages, Appendices--622 pages, July 13, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-06/016+1610
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Research
KW  - Roads
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36339604?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-07-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+CASPER+FIELD+OFFICE+PLANNING+AREA%2C+NATRONA%2C+CONVERSE%2C+GOSHEN%2C+AND+PLATTE+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+CASPER+FIELD+OFFICE+PLANNING+AREA%2C+NATRONA%2C+CONVERSE%2C+GOSHEN%2C+AND+PLATTE+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, Casper, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 13, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EASTSIDE TOWNSHIP FUELS AND VEGETATION PROJECT, COEUR D'ALENE DISTRICT AND NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST, IDAHO COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36342141; 12155
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fuel reduction and vegetation enhancement project is the Eastside Township area of the Coeur d'Alene District and the Nez Perce National Forest of Idaho County, Idaho is proposed. The 3,300-acre project area is located in the American River watershed of north-central Idaho, near the southern part of the Idaho Panhandle in Idaho County. Elk City is the closest community. The area is characterized by declining forest health, accumulations of fuels due to fire suppression, and impacts of historic activities such as road construction and mining. Restoration activities are being proposed to address watershed, water quality, and fishery conditions and provide a plan for improved public access. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to hazardous fuels, watershed values, fisheries, and road and trail access. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would implementation vegetation and fuel treatments on 1,293 acres. Specific measures would include regeneration harvest that would reserve groups and single trees, including 351 acres of irregular shelterwood harvest, 284 acres of shelterwood harvest, and 286 acres of seed tree harvest; commercial thinnng on 123 acres; slash-and-burn treatments on 140 acres, and salvage harvest on 109 acres. Some helicopter yarding would be included in the plan. Harvest activities would generate 10.4 million board-feet (MMBF) of green wood harvest and 3.6 MMBF of deadwood harvest. Treatments would also involve fuels treatments, using a combination of biomass utilization, piling and burning, and prescribed burning. Timber management would require construction of 15 miles of temporary road. Actions to be implemented for riparian and/or aquatic condition improvement would include 4.8 miles of riparian tree and shrub planting, 1.2 miles of stream bank re-contouring, planting, and sediment mitigation, reconnection of Queens Creek (1 1.35-mile fish-bearing stream) with the American River, replacement of two river/stream fords with bridges, construction of 0.57 mile of permanent road to replace existing road, conversion of 1.6 miles of road to all-terrain vehicle trail, and decommissioning of 1.9 miles of road. Present net value for the preferred alternative is estimated at $136,395. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would reduce the risk of high-intensity wildland fire, protecting forest resources and the residents of Elk City; create forest stand conditions that would contribute to sustaining long-lived fire tolerant tree species; provide a public transportation system, that offers safe travel routes for the public, while meeting watershed and fisheries management goals, in a cost-effective manner; create an upward trend in fish habitat conditions; and contribute to the economic and social well being of area users and local residents;. Management activities would result in the creation of 227 jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Harvesting and road and trail work would result in the destruction of vegetation and the disturbance and compaction of soils, reducing wildlife habitat carrying capacity in the short-term and increasing erosion and sediment levels in the immediately affected and downslope areas. Burning would result in further loss of vegetation and soil movement and would degrade air quality in the wind shed during and immediately after burns. All activities would degrade visual aesthetics and other recreational values in the short-term. LEG]Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060286, Draft EIS--316 pages, Appendices--101 pages and maps, July 6, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM-ID-420-2005-EIS-952
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Employment
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment Control
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Nez Perce National Forest
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342141?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EASTSIDE+TOWNSHIP+FUELS+AND+VEGETATION+PROJECT%2C+COEUR+D%27ALENE+DISTRICT+AND+NEZ+PERCE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+IDAHO+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=EASTSIDE+TOWNSHIP+FUELS+AND+VEGETATION+PROJECT%2C+COEUR+D%27ALENE+DISTRICT+AND+NEZ+PERCE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+IDAHO+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cottonwood, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTHERN MOUNTAIN DIABLO RANGE AND CENTRAL COAST OF CALIFORNIA:
AN  - 36342847; 12518
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan (RMP) for Bureau of Land (BLM)-administered lands in the Southern Diablo Mountain Range and Central Coast of California is proposed. In all, the BLM manages approximately 274,000 acres of land representing a variety of settings and landforms that provide habitat for numerous plant and animal species and offers recreation and other multiple-use opportunities. The Planning Area for this RMP/EIS does not include the approximately 75,000 acre Clear Creek Management Area (CCMA), which will be addressed in a separate RMP amendment specific to that area. Since 1984, the current RMP has been amended several times to address new issues and emerging trends on public lands. In addition, BLM has since acquired new public lands that require management direction to achieve desired future conditions. Currently, BLM manages 7,200 acres of Fort Ord Public Lands and an additional 8,000 acres will be included upon cleanup by the Army. Approximately 6,770 acres at Santa Cruz Coast Dairies are expected to be managed by the BLM. These two areas are included in the proposed RMP. This document is a revision to the Hollister Resource Management Plan and associated amendments, which have guided land use planning decisions for the BLM Hollister Field Office since 1984. During this time, many social, political, and environmental changes have occurred that affect resource conditions and influence public land uses. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to off-highway vehicle management and route designations; establishment of recreation-carrying capacities; provision of recreational opportunities to meet the public demand; management of current and future special status species; the potential for the spread of noxious weeds; consideration of lands to be designated for special management; land tenure adjustments; fluid and solid mineral development; impacts on watershed resources and water quality; resource management impacts on air quality in non-attainment areas; and implementation of the Federal Wildland Fire Policy. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in the draft EIS. The preferred alternative identified in this final EIS, which represents a combination of various proposal forwarded in the draft EIS alternatives, would emphasize balancing resource conservation and ecosystem health with the production of commodities and with public use of the land. Management would focus on protecting sensitive resources, while limiting or excluding certain resource uses in sensitive areas. Resource areas and related issues addressed include air quality, soils, water quality and quantity, vegetation, wildlife habitat, special status species, the fire regime, recreation values, visual resources, special management areas, livestock ranges, energy resources and other mineral resources, cultural and paleontological resources, socioeconomic values, transportation facilities, hazardous materials, and land and realty. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised RMP would maintain and improve natural, cultural, and open space values through partnerships and collaboration, for the enjoyment and use of a growing and diverse population of current and future generations. The plan would allow the development of partnerships with federal, state, and local entities that could broaden involvement in the planning process and widen acceptance and ownership in the future management of public lands. The revision of the 1984 RMP would allow local counties and communities to explore their common needs, such as planning for transportation, emergency services, law enforcement, infrastructure, and tourism or recreational opportunities appropriate for the surrounding communities. This planning effort would be comprehensive, evaluating existing management plans and resolving or addressing issues within the region identified through public, interagency, and within-agency scoping efforts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and administrative actions, particularly those related to mineral extraction, within the study area would result in the loss of vegetation and the disturbance of soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, geologic structures, and paleontologic 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.).AGN DES 05-54. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0059D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 060282, 821 pages, July 5, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2006-021
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fires
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342847?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-07-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+SOUTHERN+MOUNTAIN+DIABLO+RANGE+AND+CENTRAL+COAST+OF+CALIFORNIA%3A&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+SOUTHERN+MOUNTAIN+DIABLO+RANGE+AND+CENTRAL+COAST+OF+CALIFORNIA%3A&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hollister, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 5, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FURNACE CREEK WATER COLLECTION SYSTEM, DEATH VALLEY NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36342252; 12151
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Furnace Creek water collection system in the Furnace Creek area of Death Valley National Park, California is proposed. The current water collection system consists of four water collection boxes at Travertine Springs, a collection gallery in Furnace Creek Wash, a tunnel for water collection constructed similar to a mine audit at Texas Springs, and a tunnel for water collection constructed similar to a mine audit at the Furnace Creek Inn (Inn Tunnel). All water distributed by the existing collection system, except that collected at the Inn Tunnel, is potable, although much of the water is used for irrigation and other non-potable purposes. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would rebuild the outdated water collection All three action alternatives would separate the potable and non-potable water system in the project area and provide non-potable water from the Inn Tunnel and a relocated Furnace Creek Wash collection gallery. Alternative 2 would provide potable water from rebuilt collection galleries at Travertine Springs Lines 3 and 4 and two new groundwater wells in the Texas Springs Syncline. Alternative 2 would treat water collected for potable purposes using a reverse osmosis water treatment plant, and would dispose of concentrate water from the water treatment plant into a percolation trench in Furnace Creek Fan. Alternative 3 (Preferred) would provide potable water from two to three new groundwater wells in the Texas Springs Syncline. Alternative 3 would treat water collected for potable purposes using a reverse osmosis water treatment plant, and would dispose of concentrate water from the water treatment plant into a percolation trench in Furnace Creek Wash. Alternative 4 would provide potable water from Travertine Springs Lines 2,3, and 4 and Texas Springs. Alternative 4 would treat water collected for potable purposes using a reverse osmosis water treatment plant (including treated bypass water), and would discharge concentrate water to a tributary of Texas Springs Wash. Each of the action alternatives would install a number of groundwater monitoring wells. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would rebuild the outdated water collection system in the Furnace Creek area to deliver a safe and reliable potable and non-potable water supply to the park's main visitor use area. The preferred alternative would provide a reliable quality and quantity of potable water for the National Park Service, Xanterra resort facilities (i.e., the Furnace Creek Inn and Furnace Creek Ranch), Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, and park visitors; promote the conservation of biological and cultural resource values in the Texas-Travertine Springs area and enhance water resource protection and management in the Furnace Creek area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Groundwater pumping would result in a 24 percent decline in discharge rates at Texas Springs, Tavertine Srings, and the intervening springs. Construction activities would displace 0.13 acre of wetlands. Construction and operation activities would disturb and/or destroy small areas of vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status species. Paleontologic, archaeologic, and historic resources as well as visual aesthetics could also be affected, though impacts would be minor. 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 06-0058D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 060281, 523 pages, July 3, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - California
KW  - Death Valley National Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342252?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RECONSTRUCTION+OF+THE+FURNACE+CREEK+WATER+COLLECTION+SYSTEM%2C+DEATH+VALLEY+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RECONSTRUCTION+OF+THE+FURNACE+CREEK+WATER+COLLECTION+SYSTEM%2C+DEATH+VALLEY+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Death Valley, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 3, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TO REMOVE OR MODIFY THE SURVEY AND MANAGE MITIGATION MEASURE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES, FOREST SERVICE NATIONAL FOREST REGIONS 5 AND 6 AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS IN WASHINGTON, OREGON, AND CALIFORNIA WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE SPOTTED OWL (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2004).
AN  - 36342120; 12145
AB  - PURPOSE: The removal or modification of Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (SMMMSG) governing U.S. Forest Service in regions 5 and 6 and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) districts in Washington, Oregon, and California within the range of the endangered northern spotted owl is proposed. The proposal responds to a settlement agreement resulting from a lawsuit against the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior. The proposal would require amendment of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). Concerns have been raised that the SMMMSG are frustrating Forest Service and BLM efforts to the accomplish resource management objectives of the NFP. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the January 2004 final supplement to the final EIS of 1994 addressing the forest plan. The 304 affected species were analyzed to determine the consequences under the three alternatives. The analyses demonstrated that the SMMMSG and the Special Status Species programs add protection and reduce risk to species. Alternatives 2 or 3 would, respectively, amend or modify agency land and resource management plans to remove the SMMMSG. Alternative 2, the proposed action, would amend 28 land and resource management plans to remove SMMMSG provisions. The alternative would provide for surveys prior to habitat-disturbing activities, site management, conservation strategies, inventories, consideration of potential mitigation measures, the addition or removal of species from protective provisions, and provisions for reporting, monitoring, and review of land and resource management plans. This draft supplement to the final supplement of January 2004 provides additional analysis in response to three deficiencies in the foregoing EIS process by the District Court of the Western District of Washington in August 2005. To respond to these deficiencies, this supplement analyzes potential impacts to sensitive species not added to or removed from the special species protection programs of the Forest Service or the BLM; provides a thorough analysis of the assumption that late-successional reserves adequately protect species for the target protected species; and discloses and analyses flaws in the analytical methodology for calculating the acreage in need of hazardous fuel treatments and the related cost analysis methodology. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would continue to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities in the affected areas; reduce the agencies' cost, time, and effort associated with rare and little known species conservation; and restore the agencies' ability to achieve resource management objectives that were established under the NFP. Compared to Alternative 1, annual timber harvest would be 100 million board-feet (MMBF) or 75 MMBF higher under alternatives 2 or 3, respectively. Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase annual employment and hazardous fuel treatment acreage. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Recognizing that much remains unknown about many of the species, 141 species would remain at high risk of extirpation under all alternatives due to factors beyond the control of the FS and the BLM. A total of 47 and seven species, which are not at high risk under Alternative 1, would be at high risk of extirpation under alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs, see 03-0399D, Volume 27, Number 4 and 04-0279F, Volume 28, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of a previous draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0325D, Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060274, Final EIS-- 352 pages, Appendices--414 pages, June 26, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-04/007+1792
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Forests
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Washington
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
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/36342120?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-06-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TO+REMOVE+OR+MODIFY+THE+SURVEY+AND+MANAGE+MITIGATION+MEASURE+STANDARDS+AND+GUIDELINES%2C+FOREST+SERVICE+NATIONAL+FOREST+REGIONS+5+AND+6+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+OREGON%2C+AND+CALIFORNIA+WITHIN+THE+RANGE+OF+THE+SPOTTED+OWL+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2004%29.&rft.title=TO+REMOVE+OR+MODIFY+THE+SURVEY+AND+MANAGE+MITIGATION+MEASURE+STANDARDS+AND+GUIDELINES%2C+FOREST+SERVICE+NATIONAL+FOREST+REGIONS+5+AND+6+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+OREGON%2C+AND+CALIFORNIA+WITHIN+THE+RANGE+OF+THE+SPOTTED+OWL+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Salt Lake City, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 26, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 36340520; 12136
AB  - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 15,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. The proponent's proposed action would involve the development of the refinery development and forage production operation by the BIA and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency for the efflue3nt discharges related to refinery operation. In addition to this alternative, this DEIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil, 2,000 BPSD of fuel butane, 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas, and 300 barrels of biodisel of 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in numerous socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of thee refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. Operation of the refinery and cultivation and harvesting of the forage enterprise would provide steady employment for fewer workers in the long-term. In addition to this direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur induced job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion and strength necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060265, 478 pages, June 22, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Employment
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Refineries
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36340520?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 22, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRANSFER AND CASINO, CALHOUN COUNTY, MICHIGAN.
AN  - 36340806; 12134
AB  - PURPOSE: The federal approval of a management agreement with the National Indian Gaming Commission for the construction and operation of a casino on a 79-acre parcel to be placed in trust in Calhoun County, Michigan is proposed. The U.S. Department of the Interior holes approximately 545.7 million acres of land in trust for more than 275 federally recognized Indian tribes. As of 2003, approximately 200 Indian tribes operate gaming establishments in 28 states pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Eighteen such facilities currently operate in Michigan. A number of alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and site alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would provide for casino facilities incorporating Class II and III gaming conducted in accordance with IGRA and Tribal-State Compact requirements. Class I gaming includes bingo, pull tabs, and non-banking card games. Class three gaming includes slot machines, table games, and banking card games, such as baccarat and blackjack. The casino would be located on the former Sackrider Farm, Parcel H, at the interchange of Interstate 94 )I-94) and I-94 Business Route, also named Michigan Avenue. The gaming facility would encompass 136,000 square feet and would be designed to accommodate 2,000 slot machines and 50 gaming tables, Site facilities would include parking for 3,600 vehicles for patrons and gaming facility employees and 75 visitor spaces for buses and other oversized vehicles. The site plan would maximize the use of native plants, where feasible, and would preclude the use of nuisance/invasive non-native species. Approximately 44 acres within the site would consist of ponds, berms, and undeveloped green spaces. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in numerous socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the casino would employ 770 workers. After the casino opens, the facility would employ a staff of 1,227 workers, creating new employment opportunities not only for Tribal members but for many other residents of the county. In addition to this direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur induced job growth in the county, resulting in 1,023 indirectly related jobs. The preferred alternative would result in indirect and induced economic output valued at $82.6 million in 2006 and $113.5 million in 2020. Since the net annual win is anticipated to be at least $125 million, the state would receive at least $10 million per year and local governments at least $2.5 million per year. In addition to the Compact payments by the Tribe the indirect and induced economic output associated with the preferred alternative would result in increased business tax revenues by other businesses ranging from $4.2 million in 2006 to $45.8 million in 2020. The additional revenues would help the Tribe develop the political cohesion and strength necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities and use and maintenance of the facility would have slight impacts on site topography, soils, geology and mineral resources, surface water, groundwater, wetlands, air quality, living and biological resources, cultural resources, demographics, public assistance, property values, housing commercial development, community sevice3s, crime, alcohol consumption, poverty, farming, recreation, land use, traffic levels, ambient noise levels, hazardous material site exposure, public health and safety, and area aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 465) and Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0624D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060263, 1,071 pages and maps, June 21, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Employment
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Michigan
KW  - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Project Authorization
KW  - Indian Reorganization Act, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36340806?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-06-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NOTTAWASEPPI+HURON+BAND+OF+POTAWATOMI+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRANSFER+AND+CASINO%2C+CALHOUN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=NOTTAWASEPPI+HURON+BAND+OF+POTAWATOMI+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRANSFER+AND+CASINO%2C+CALHOUN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Snelling, Minnesota; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 21, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EAST ALASKA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36345167; 12131
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan for the 76.1 million acres of eastern Alaska administered by the Glennallen Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposed. The planning area also includes private land, state land, and land managed by other federal agencies, but management directions in the general management plan apply only to BLM-administered land. The revised resource management plan would update the South central management Framework Plan, approved in 1980, to provide a land use plan consistent with evolving laws, regulations, and policies. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to travel management, recreation, natural and cultural resources, land and realty, vegetation management, leasable and locatable minerals, and subsistence. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Alternative C would emphasize resource conversion. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would provide for a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement of resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area and four special recreation management areas, but measures to protect resource values would also be applied to other geographical areas that are also identified under Alternative C. The alternative would revoke many land withdrawals activated under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, but would retain some withdrawals in areas where strong resource protection is necessary. A viable federal subsistence hunting unit would be retained. The alternative would also provide prescriptions for interim and long-term management strategies for lands selected by the state or Native Alaskan or village corporations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for a balance between resource conservation and improvement in ecological conditions, while allowing for commodity production. Local economies would benefit economically from additional resource extraction opportunities and expanded use of recreational resources. Subsistence opportunities would be maintained for Native Alaskans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would continue to cause soil compaction and loss of protective vegetative cover, thereby increasing soil erosion. Increases in recreational visitation and duration of visits could increase conflicts between users and unanticipated changes in resource conditions. Increased visitation, particularly increased OHV-related visitation, would also increase risks of accidental and intentional damage to cultural resources. Vegetation treatments, mineral development, and other management activities, as well as unauthorized activities, could cause short-term displacement of wildlife during the activities or treatments and while the disturbed area recovered. Large-scale, stand-replacing wildland fires are expected to occur within the planning area over the live of the plan; these would quickly alter the scenic quality of the landscape without regard to visual resource objectives. Landscape scarring would also result from cross-country OHV travel. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060260, Volume I-724 pages and maps, Volume II-726 pages, June 16, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-06/005+1610+50
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Research
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36345167?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-06-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+ALASKA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=EAST+ALASKA+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, Glennallen, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 16, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS PROJECT, UINTA COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 36342036; 12130
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of natural gas resources within a 79,914-acre tract in the Atche Wash Oil and Gas Production Region, south of the White River in Uinta County, Utah is proposed. The Kidd Family Partnership, Phoenix Energy, Inc., Rosewood Resources, Inc., and White River Resources Management Inc. (known, for the purpose of the development proposal as the Resource Development Group (RDG)) would drill 423 natural gas wells on federal, sate, and private lands, construct roads and gathering lines for natural gas and produced water, dispose of produced water in an approved injection well, and integration of one 350-horsepower compressor station into the Kinder Morgan gas pipeline gathering and transmission network to pump natural gas to the regional natural gas transmission system. The primary area considered for natural gas extraction would encompass portions of the Wasatch and Mesa Verde formations, which are the primary producing horizons in the area. Wells into the Dakota and Weber Sandstones would probably also be drilled. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to land use plans, geology and minerals, water resources, air quality, soils, vegetation, riparian and wetland resources, wildlife habitat, federally protected species, cultural and paleontological resources, land use, recreational and visual resources, wilderness characteristics, socioeconomics, and reclamation and environmental protection. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1, the proposed action, would allow RDG to implement its proposal. Alternatives 2 and 3, which would address, respectively, wildlife and other environmental issues raised during the agency and public scoping process, would incorporate the same construction, operational, decommissioning, and reclamation components provided under RDG's proposal, but would include restrictions on actions to take place on federal lands. Under the No Action Alternative, drilling would continue on state and private leases, and access and pipelines that cross federal lands to reach the state and private lands would be granted as required by federal regulations. Alternative 2 has been chosen as the preferred alternative. This alternative would sink the same number of wells and provide for the same length of road work and the same level of water use as the proposed action and result in the same extent of surface disturbance. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The applicant's proposal and the preferred alternative would allow for extraction of 448.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas from the area, providing needed energy to the region and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and environmentally damaging fossil fuels. Recreational access to the area would be enhanced. The project would increase regional employment rolls by 89 to 179 jobs, resulting in a significant increase in regional wages in this sector. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance would result in removal of vegetation on 1,222 acres, including long-term disturbance on 867 acres. Approximately 3.5 acres of riparian area could be disturbed. Mule deer, elk, pronghorn deer, upland game, small mammals, furbearers, waterfowl, reptiles and amphibians, and raptors would suffer from the presence of humans and the physical alteration of habitat. The placement of 143 of the proposed wells could affect habitat of the Graham beardtongue and White River beard tongue, two federally protected plant species. Special status raptor species, sage grouse, and neo-tropical migratory songbirds, all of which are federally protected, could also be affected. Groundwater quality within shallow alluvial aquifers could be affected by infiltration and migration of drilling muds, upward migration of saline water, and hydraulic fracturing fluids. The proposed wells would produce 52,367 tons of sediment over the life of the project. Construction on steep slopes would increase the difficulty of reclamation activities. The project area would extend into fossil-bearing geological formations, and project activities could affect 50 to 216 archaeological sites. Visual and other recreational resources within the development area would be degraded by well pads and road construction. 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 04-0006D, Volume 28, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 060259, 461 pages, June 16, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-080-2003-0300V
KW  - Birds
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342036?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-06-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+DEVELOPMENT+GROUP%2C+UINTA+BASIN+NATURAL+GAS+PROJECT%2C+UINTA+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=RESOURCE+DEVELOPMENT+GROUP%2C+UINTA+BASIN+NATURAL+GAS+PROJECT%2C+UINTA+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 16, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CLACKAMAS RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, CLAKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON (FERC PROJECT NO. 2195).
AN  - 36340960; 12129
AB  - PURPOSE: The relicensing of the existing 173-megawatt )MW) Clackamas Hydroelectric Project located on the Clackamas River in Clackamas County, Oregon is proposed by the project's owner/operator, Portland General Electric Company (PG&E). The 2,478-acre project site lies in the vicinity of Estacada and 30 miles southeast of Portland. The sites is managed by the U.S. Forest Service (2,365 acres) and the Bureau of Land Management (113 acres). Facilities operated under the licensing agreements include three reservoirs on the Oak Grove Fork of the Clackamas River drainage known as the Oak Grove Development and including Timothy Lake, the Lake Harriet Diversion, and Frog Lake, and the North Fork, Faraday, and River Mill developments, three impoundments and associated hydroelectric facilities on the main stem of the Clackamas. The power generated by the project provides approximately 72 percent of the current need for power by PG&E's 733,000 customers in the region; this constitutes 40 percent of the electrical power supplied in Oregon. Five species of anadromonous fish occur within the project area, including wild late-run and naturalized early-run Coho salmon, spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon, winter-and-summer-run steelhead trout, coastal cutthroat trout, and Pacific lamprey. Key issues associated with relicinsing this project include those related to erosion and sediment control, water quality and quantity, fish resources and habitat and protection enhancement, fish passage, terrestrial habitat connectivity, potential impacts to federally protected species of wildlife and plants, enhancement of local recreational opportunities, land use and socioeconomics, aesthetic resources, and cultural resources. In addition to the No Action Alternative, which would allow the project to continue to operate under existing licensing conditions, and the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS addresses the proposal as modified by recommendations by Federal Energy Regulatory Agency staff; the latter constitute the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the staff's preferred alternative, the project would provide a significant and dependable source of electrical energy for the region; avoid the need for an equivalent output of fossil-fuel generation of electric output and capacity, thereby continuing to conserve non-renewable energy resources and reduce atmosphere pollution; and implement reasonable environmental measures to ensure protection and enhancement of the riverine ecology and associated fishery resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the staff alternative, the project would cost approximately $17.7 million annually to operate, an amount $8.3 million greater than under the No Action Alternative. Power benefits would be worth $30.2 million, $2.3 million less than under the No Action Alternative. Net annual benefits would amount to $12.5 million, $10.5 million less than under the No Action Alternative. The project's average annual generation would be 695,366 MW-hours less than under the No Action Alternative. Operation of the reservoirs would continue to displace free-flowing river stretched sand inundate riparian and terrestrial habitat, including wetlands. Fluctuations upstream and downstream of the dams would continue to result in scour in downstream areas and mudflats in upstream areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060258, 741 pages, June 16, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0187D
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Clackamas River
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance
KW  - Federal Power Act of 1920, Licensing
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36340960?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-06-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLACKAMAS+RIVER+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+CLAKAMAS+COUNTY%2C+OREGON+%28FERC+PROJECT+NO.+2195%29.&rft.title=CLACKAMAS+RIVER+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+CLAKAMAS+COUNTY%2C+OREGON+%28FERC+PROJECT+NO.+2195%29.&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 - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 16, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - TRUNK HIGHWAY (TH) 36/STH 64 NEW ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AND ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1995).
AN  - 36340782; 12114
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of 6.7 miles of Trunk Highway (TH) 36 in Washington County, Minnesota and St, Croix County, Wisconsin, is proposed. The project would include the functional replacement of the existing drawbridge over the St. Croix River and the reconstruction of approach highways leading to the bridge. The study area termini are the vicinity of County Road 15 in Minnesota and a point on STH 64 approximately 2.5 miles east of the state line in Wisconsin. The possibility of improving existing TH 36 from Houlton to New Richmond, 15 miles to the east, is currently under study. This represents a separate study based on transportation needs independent of the river crossing analysis. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of April 1995. In 1996, the U.S. National Park Service evaluated the project under Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and found that the project, as proposed, would have a direct adverse effect on the outstandingly remarkable scenic and recreational values for which the Lower St. Croix River was included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers. As a result, the necessary permits were withdrawn, and the project was not allowed to proceed. This final supplement to the final EIS considers a new proposal and four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative. The preferred alternative would provide a roadway from the Minnesota 5/Minnesota 36 interchange in Minnesota, cross the St. Croix River, and terminate at the 150th Avenue overpass in Wisconsin. The segment of Minnesota 36 to be reconstructed would extend from 1,050 feet east of the Washington/Norell intersection with Minnesota 36 to the St. Croix River. The new four-lane bridge would cross the river at the present location of the Minnesota 36/Minnesota 95 interchange and extend across the river to a point approximately 6,450 feet south of the Lift Bridge in Wisconsin. Wisconsin 35 would e relocated to the east of its present alignment to provide for an interchange with relocated St. Croix County Highway E. Wisconsin 64 would be constructed from the St. Croix River through this new interchange to the 150th Avenue overpass in the town of St. Joseph. An extradosed bridge design, consisting of towers with cables connecting the towers to the bridge deck, would be implemented. The Lift Bridge would be converted to a pedestrian/bicycle crossing, constituting a component in a loop trail connecting Minnesota and Wisconsin via the Lift Bridge and the new river crossing. The estimated cost of preferred alternative ranges from $299 million to #373 million, depending on bid probability calculations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to major transportation service, safety, and congestion improvements that would occur with the construction of any of the build alternatives, there would be several social, economic, and environmental benefits. A hindrance to resolution of a significant problem in planning the nature of the future transportation network serving 11 study area communities would be removed. Reduction in air pollutant emissions, energy use, and traffic-generated noise, as well as improved water quality would also result. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would affect three parks, the Lowe St. Croix National River way System, and the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility Property, as well as resulting in the displacement of commercial properties, single-family residences, multi-family residences, farmland, wetlands, and several acres of trees and undergrowth along the river shorelines and the associated wildlife habitat. Floodplain encroachment would result from bridge construction. Storm water runoff from the roadway could significantly degrade water quality in the river. The project could impact freshwater mussels, dotted blazing star, osprey, and bald eagle, all of which are federally protected species. Numerous sensitive receptor sites and a portion of the river would be subject to traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal and/or state standards. There would be a potential for cumulative impacts to archaeological and historic resources due to changes in surrounding land use, accessibility, settings, and views. Construction workers would encounter numerous potentially contaminated sites. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), 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 90-0121D, Volume 14, Number 2. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 05-0223D, Volume 29, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 060243, Draft Supplemental EIS--591 pages and maps, Final Supplemental EIS--877 pages and maps, June 8, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-90-02-FS
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Highways
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Shellfish
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - St. Croix River
KW  - Wisconsin
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits
KW  - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36340782?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+%28TH%29+36%2FSTH+64+NEW+ST.+CROIX+RIVER+CROSSING%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+AND+ST.+CROIX+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1995%29.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+%28TH%29+36%2FSTH+64+NEW+ST.+CROIX+RIVER+CROSSING%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+AND+ST.+CROIX+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1995%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 8, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, CLALLAM, GRAYS HARBOR, JEFFERSON, AND MASON COUNTIES, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36347507; 12110
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for Olympic National Park of Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, and Mason counties, Washington is proposed to provide for management of park resources for the next 15 to 20 years. The last comprehensive management pan for the 922,651-acre park was completed in 1976 and must be revised to address changes in visitor use patterns, recreational preferences, and park boundaries. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize natural and cultural resource protection. The part would be managed as a large ecosystem preserve emphasizing wilderness management for resource conservation and protection, with a reduced number of facilities to support visitation. Previously disturbed areas would undergo restoration. Alternative C would emphasize visitor opportunities. Park resources would be important natural, cultural, and recreational attractions for increased regional tourism through dispersed visitation, increased partnerships, improved park and partnership facilities, and increased year-found access. Increases in front country visitation and improved access to the wilderness would be accommodated. Natural resources in undeveloped areas would be protected through management actions and resource education programs. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative and represents a combination of the other alternatives, would emphasize both the protection of resources and the improvement of visitor experiences. This would be accomplished by accommodating diverse visitor use, providing sustainable access on existing roads, improving mass transit opportunities, and concentrating improved educational and recreational opportunities on the developed park edges. Front country visitation and wilderness use would be managed for resource protection and improved visitor experiences. Park wide facilities and infrastructure would generally remain at current levels. Alternative D would include boundary adjustments in adjacent lands in the Lake Crescent, Ozette, and Queets areas. Under all action alternatives, the comprehensive maintenance, protection, and preservation measures issued by the Department of the Interior would be employed for structures listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance the protection of natural and cultural resources with improvement of visitor experiences. The diversity of visitor experiences would increase significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Wilderness values would be degraded in some areas due to the proximity of visitor facilities and increased visitation. Archaeological resources would also suffer somewhat more than at present due to increased visitation. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and Olympic National Park Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 1241).
JF  - EPA number: 060239, 429 pages, June 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Olympia National Park
KW  - Washington
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Olympic National Park Act of 1938, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347507?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-06-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CLALLAM%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+AND+MASON+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CLALLAM%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+AND+MASON+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CARLSBAD PROJECT WATER OPERATIONS AND WATER SUPPLY CONSERVATION, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 16357317; 12103
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of modifications relative to the operations plan for the Carlsbad Project, as well as in the associated water acquisition program in New Mexico is proposed to conserve critical habitat conditions for the Pecos bluntnose shiner. Carlsbad Project operations include the diversion of water to storage and releasing water for authorized use. Sumner Lake, the storage reservoir used by the project, is located immediately upstream of the reach of the river where the endangered shiner. The federal authority administering the project, the Bureau of Reclamation, possess limited opportunities to store and release water in Sumner Lake under its state water rights permit and the Sumner Dam authorization. Proposed changes in the Carlsbad Project would include bypassing available inflows through Santa Rose and Sumner dams to meet the target flows for the endangered fish species or minimum flows as measured at either the Taiban gage below Taiban Creek near Fort Sumner or the Near Acme gage. These gages are used to monitor flows in river reaches that have dried in the past. Depending on the alternative selected, these target flows could be constant or seasonally variable or variable depending on hydrologic conditions. Actions contemplated would also include guidance for block releases, use of a fish conservation pool, and implementation of an adoptive management plan. Since changes in the project operations benefit shiner could result in reduction to the available water supply, a variety of options for acquiring water to keep the project whole are also considered. Additional options have been developed to acquire water to directly augment flows and meet target flows at gage locations in the reaches of the river where the shiner is present. Additional analysis is expected to include documents tiered from this final EIS, such as environmental assessments and categorical excluding. For some actions, resource field studies, such as cultural and biological assessments, could be conducted. Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered. The preferred alternative, known as the Taiban Constant Alternative (Alternative 1), would involve operation of the project to divert to storage when flows at the Taiban gage were greater than 35 feet per second and deliver from storage water as contracted for irrigation and consistent with applicable federal and state mandates. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project modifications would conserve and protect the endangered shiner while conserving the water supply provided by the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 720 acre-feet of additional water would be needed per year that is currently provided under the Carlsbad Project plan to meet target flows. Approximately 1,200 acre-feet would be lost per year to non-shiner uses related to the project. Average annual flows at the New Mexico state line would decline by 440 acre-feet per year. Fewer recreational uses of the river would be available. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Reclamation Act of 1902. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0705D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060231, Final EIS--507 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--768 pages, June 1, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 06-10
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16357317?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CARLSBAD+PROJECT+WATER+OPERATIONS+AND+WATER+SUPPLY+CONSERVATION%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=CARLSBAD+PROJECT+WATER+OPERATIONS+AND+WATER+SUPPLY+CONSERVATION%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SHEEP COMPLEX, BIG SPRINGS AND OWYHEE GRAZING ALLOTMENTS, SENSITIVE BIRD SPECIES, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 36339551; 12097
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a sensitive bird management plan in relation to the allotment management plans (AMPs) of the Sheep Allotment Complex and the Big Springs and Owyhee grazing allotments in Elko County of northwestern Nevada is proposed. On April 14, 2003, three multiple-use decisions made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Elko Field Office for the Sheep Allotment Complex were challenged in the U.S. District Court. On December 18, 2004, the BLM was directed to complete an EIS to determine the impacts of livestock grazing with respect to the following sensitive bird species and allotments: western burrowing owls, raptors, and sage grouse in the Sheep Allotment Complex and the Owyhee Allotment and sage grouse in the Big Springs Allotment. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would existing allotment permits and stipulations, are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would implement each of the multiple-use decisions, which include changes to the permitted grazing system and range improvement projects. The two other alternatives would also implement each of the multiple-use decisions. BLM's preferred alternative is to implement the multiple-use decisions under Alternative 2. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the multiple-use decisions under Alternative 2 would have the potential to improve the upland vegetation, decrease the establishment and spread of non-native plant species, improve riparian vegetation, improve brood habitat for sage grouse in the near-term, improve sage grouse nesting habitat, and improve habitat for long-eared and short-eared owls within the Sheep Allotment Complex. The measures would also improve the overall habitat for other raptor species. Alternatives 3 and 4 would provide improve upland vegetation as well, with Alternative 4 providing the most improvement of all the alternatives and Alternative 3 providing the next highest degree of improvement. Control of non-native species would also be effective under alternatives 3 and 4. Within the Big Springs and Owyhee allotments, positive impacts would be similar as for the Sheep Allotment Complex, except that Alternative 3 would increase the spread of non-native species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Multiple-use decision implementation could adversely impact sag grouse brood habitat over the long-term and result in the spread of noxious weeds. Range improvements would, in some cases, displace vegetation and disturb soils. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald Eagle Protection Act (P.L. 92-535), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0034D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 060225, Final EIS--171 pages and maps, Public Comments and Reponses--202 pages, May 26, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: FES 06-14
KW  - Birds
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Bald Eagle Protection Act, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 13186, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36339551?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-05-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SHEEP+COMPLEX%2C+BIG+SPRINGS+AND+OWYHEE+GRAZING+ALLOTMENTS%2C+SENSITIVE+BIRD+SPECIES%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SHEEP+COMPLEX%2C+BIG+SPRINGS+AND+OWYHEE+GRAZING+ALLOTMENTS%2C+SENSITIVE+BIRD+SPECIES%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Elko, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 26, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SNAKE RIVER BIRDS OF PREY NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA, ADA, CANYON, ELMORE, AND OWYHEE COUNTIES, IDAHO.
AN  - 36346060; 12092
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general resource management plan for the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (NCA) of Ada, Canyon, Elmore, and Owyhee counties, Idaho is proposed. The 483,700-acre NCA in southwestern Idaho was established in 1993 to conserve, protect, and enhance raptor populations and habitats. The NCA contains the greatest concentration of nesting raptors in North America. The cliffs of the Snake River Canyon provide ideal nesting sites, while adjacent upland plateau supports unusually large populations of small mammalian prey. The area also provides training grounds for the Idaho Air National Guard and Army National Guard and land for the Shoshone-Bannock and Shoshone-Paiute tribes. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The current habitat restoration program would be driven primarily by emergency fire rehabilitation processes, resulting in a minimal increase in the acreage of shrub communities. Current uses would be accommodated, but could be moderated based on new laws, regulations, and policies. Alternative B would emphasize the restoration of a moderate amount of raptor and raptor prey habitat in addition to those areas affected by emergency fire rehabilitation and fuels management projects. This alternative would accommodate recreational uses, military operations, and commodity uses that were compatible with the purposes of the NCA. Alternative C would emphasize the restoration and rehabilitation of all non-shrub areas outside the Orchard Training Area to improve raptor and raptor prey habitat. To support this level of habitat restoration, recreational uses and military training would be substantially restricted and livestock grazing would be eliminated. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize the restoration and rehabilitation of all non-shrub areas outside the Orchard Training Area to improve raptor and raptor prey habitat, while imposing only moderate restrictions on recreation, military training, and commercial uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: While continue to effect the mandate establishing the NCA by protecting and enhancing habitat for raptors and raptor prey, the general management plan would ensure appropriate commercial, public and military use of the NCA. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued designation of the area as an NCA would prevent the exploitation of resources that would damage raptor habitat or hunting areas. Management measures, including vegetation manipulations, as well as military training operations, recreational user activities, and exploitative use of the NCA lands would result in disturbance of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and cultural resource sites. User conflicts between recreationists, naturalists, and grazing allotment operators and other exploitative users would increase due to increased visitation and more intensive management. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Public Law 103-64.
JF  - EPA number: 060220, 387 pages, May 23, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 06-24
KW  - Birds
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Military Facilities (Air Force)
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Air Force)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 103-64, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346060?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-05-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SNAKE+RIVER+BIRDS+OF+PREY+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+ADA%2C+CANYON%2C+ELMORE%2C+AND+OWYHEE+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=SNAKE+RIVER+BIRDS+OF+PREY+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+ADA%2C+CANYON%2C+ELMORE%2C+AND+OWYHEE+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 23, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - WILLIAMSVILLE TOLL BARRIER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY, INTERSTATE 90 BETWEEN INTERCHANGES 48A AND 50, ERIE AND GENESEE COUNTIES, NEW YORK.
AN  - 36340683; 12090
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement and possible relocation of the Interstate 90 (I-90) Williamsville toll barrier in Erie County, New York are proposed. The study corridor extends 18 miles along I-90 from the existing toll barrier location in the town of Amherst, just east of Interchange 50), in Erie County to Interchange 48A in the town of Pembroke, Genessee County. Townships traversed include Amherst, Cheektowaga, Clarence, Lancaster, and Newstead in Erie County and Pembroke in Genessee County. The existing toll barrier suffers from capacity deficiencies and operational inadequacies. Capacity deficiencies have resulted congestion and delays, which contribute to increased vehicle emissions and energy usage at that location. In addition to the alternative that would improve the existing facility at the existing location, this draft EIS considers construction of a new mainline toll barrier at one of three sites between Williamsville Toll Barrier and Interchange 48A and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new toll barrier would reduce travel time and delays through the project's study corridor by providing adequate toll processing capacity, improve toll barrier safety for patrons and employees operating the barrier facilities, provide ancillary facilities that would allow for operation of the barrier at full capacity for the foreseeable future, and encourage the use of E-ZPass electronic toll collection to improve traffic flow, promote energy conservation, reduce vehicle emissions, and reduce noise. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The relocation alternative would displace 5.2 to 22.1 acres of new rights-of-way, including 0.7 to one acre of farmland and 7.3 to 13.9 acres of wetlands. One or two structures eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be impacted under the relocation alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060218, Volume I--347 pages and maps, Volume II--271 pages and maps, Volume III--121 pages (oversized), Volume IV--295 pages and maps, Volume V--177 pages and maps, Volume VI--182 pages and maps, Volume VII--236 pages and maps, CD-ROM, May 22, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-06-01-D
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - New York
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36340683?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-05-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WILLIAMSVILLE+TOLL+BARRIER+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEW+YORK+STATE+THRUWAY%2C+INTERSTATE+90+BETWEEN+INTERCHANGES+48A+AND+50%2C+ERIE+AND+GENESEE+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=WILLIAMSVILLE+TOLL+BARRIER+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEW+YORK+STATE+THRUWAY%2C+INTERSTATE+90+BETWEEN+INTERCHANGES+48A+AND+50%2C+ERIE+AND+GENESEE+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 22, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PLATTE RIVER RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM, COLORADO, NEBRASKA, AND WYOMING: ASSESSING ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A BASINWIDE, COOPERATIVE, ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY PROGRAM.
AN  - 36340970; 12085
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem recovery program within the Platte River corridor in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming is proposed to benefit target species and their habitat. In 1997, the states and the Department of the Interior signed a cooperative agreement relating to endangered species habitats along the central Platte River. The signatories agreed to pursue a basin wide, cooperative approach to improve and maintain habitat for four threatened and endangered species, namely, the whooping crane, interior least tern, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon, within the river corridor. The habitat objectives of the program would include improving flows in the central Platte River through water re-regulation and conservation/supply projects and protecting, restoring, and maintaining at least 10,000 acres of habitat in the central Platte River corridor between Lexington and Chapman, Nebraska. This final EIS considers the first 13-year phase of the recovery program, analyzing five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with hydrology, water quality, land, target species and their habitat, other wildlife species, hydropower, recreation, economics, and social and cultural resources. The program would address the main stem and tributaries of the river and associated water projects in Nebraska; the South Platte River and its tributaries in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming; and the North Platte River and its tributaries in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming. Certain program activities could affect the Missouri River close to the mouth of the Platte River. The study area also includes irrigated lands in the basin, where water may be leased or sold to the program. While elements of the action alternatives are located throughout the entire basin, the intent of these actions is to improve habitat conditions in two habitat areas, specifically, the central Platte River between Lexington and Chapman, for whooping crane, piping plover, and interior least tern, and the reach in the lower Platte River from the Elkhorn to the confluence with the Missouri River for pallid sturgeon. Generally, the program would involve fee purchase, easement acquisition, and leasing of lands for conservation purposes and flow control and enhancement measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The program would ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act with respect to the target species, improving and maintaining habitat for these species and other species using habitat within the Platte River corridor. Land and water habitat for the target species would be improved, assisting in their conservation and recovery. The likelihood that additional species would require federal protection would be lessened. The program would also ensure compliance with historic public water-use requirements related to the river. Hydroelectric production along the river would increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Lease or purchase of irrigated lands by the program could affect agricultural uses on these lands. Flow control measures would restrict some uses of river water, including irrigation uses. Changes in reservoir levels due to releases would reduce reservoir fishery habitat values and impact recreational values associated with the impoundments. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0280D, Volume 28, Number 3
JF  - EPA number: 060216, Summary--99 pages, Final EIS-921 pages and maps, Appendices--586 pages, CD-ROM, May 19, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 064-09
KW  - Agriculture
KW  - Birds
KW  - Easements
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Platte River
KW  - Missouri River
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36340970?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-05-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PLATTE+RIVER+RECOVERY+IMPLEMENTATION+PROGRAM%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+AND+WYOMING%3A+ASSESSING+ALTERNATIVES+FOR+IMPLEMENTATION+OF+A+BASINWIDE%2C+COOPERATIVE%2C+ENDANGERED+SPECIES+RECOVERY+PROGRAM.&rft.title=PLATTE+RIVER+RECOVERY+IMPLEMENTATION+PROGRAM%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+AND+WYOMING%3A+ASSESSING+ALTERNATIVES+FOR+IMPLEMENTATION+OF+A+BASINWIDE%2C+COOPERATIVE%2C+ENDANGERED+SPECIES+RECOVERY+PROGRAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 19, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MAYSDORF LEASE BY APPLICATION TRACT, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING.
AN  - 36340029; 12073
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of a Least by Application (LBA) federal estate coal tract in Campbell County, Wyoming is proposed. The 2,219-acre tract contains 234 million tons of in-place coal and 230 million tons of mine able federal coal. The LBA tract is located in the eastern Powder River Basin, a part of the Northern Great Plains that includes most of northeastern Wyoming. The applicant, Cordero Mining Company, proposes to surface mine the tract as a maintenance lease for the existing Cordero Rojo Mine, which is adjacent to the LBA tract under consideration. Since the decertification of the Power River Federal Coal Region, 17 federal coal leases have been sold at competitive sealed-bid sales and two exchanges of federal coal of the Wyoming portion of the Powder River Federal Coal Region have been completed. This proposal represents the first application for a maintenance coal tract submitted by the Cordero Rojo Mine since decertification. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would involve refusal to lease the tract to the applicant, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action the tract would be leased by competitive bid for coal extraction. The permit area would encompass 7,859 acres average annual production from the mine would amount to 38.7 million tons; the life of the existing Cordero Rio Mine would be extended by six years. The site would be fully reclaimed following closure of the mine. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Acceptance of the application for mining would allow the existing Cordero Rojo Mine to produce an extended supply of low-sulfur coal for use by power plants for the purpose of generating electric power. Low-sulfur coal helps keep power plants within federal air quality requirements, which providing needed power to their customer base and maintaining power system reliability. The use of domestic fossil fuels would reduce the nation's dependency of foreign sources of oil and gas. Mining activities at the existing and proposed mine would employ 463 workers, 20 of which would be employed due to mining in the LBA tract. State and federal revenues from the miner would amount to $341.6 million and $263.3 million, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities under the proposed action would disturb vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat on 2,589 acres and remove 222 feet of overburden and 62 feet of coal seam from 2,076 acres. Approximately 30 acres of wetlands associated with the Belle Forche River would be displaced. Recreational using and livestock grazing on the site would be largely eliminated during mining. Three trails eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be altered by mining activities. The existing topography on the LBA tract would be changed substantially during mining. Following reclamation, the average surface elevation would be lower due to the removal of the coal seam. The altered topography could reduce habitat diversity and wildlife carrying capacity at the site. The various geology at the site would be replaced by a relatively homogeneous mixture, and site aquifers would be disturbed or lost to the depth of the bottom of the coal seam. Coal bed natural gas (CBNG) resources at the site, which currently supports 24 CBNG wells, would be vented during mining and irretrievably lost. The four conventional oil wells at the site would have to be capped and abandoned during mining, but could be reopened following closure of the mine. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060203, 611 pages, May 18, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-06/012+1320 [OAS]Cordero Mining Company
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Coal
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
KW  - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36340029?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-05-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MAYSDORF+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION+TRACT%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=MAYSDORF+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION+TRACT%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 18, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FLIGHT 93 NATIONAL MEMORIAL, SOMERSET, PENNSYLVANIA.
AN  - 16359876; 12079
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Flight 93 National memorial near Somerset, Pennsylvania is proposed. On September 11, 2001, four jet liners were hijacked by terrorists. Two were flown into the World Trade Towers in New York City, a third into the Pentagon in northern Virginia, and a fourth, Flight 93, crashed in a reclaimed coal strip mine outside Somerset. The Pennsylvania crash was caused by heroic intervention by the passengers of Flight 93. All 33 passengers, seven crew members, and the four hijackers were killed. Following an exhaustive field investigation and recovery effort during the autumn of 2001, the Pennsylvania crash site was reclaimed. Within six months of the tragic event, federal legislation was introduced to create a national memorial at the site. The resulting proposal would establish a programmatic framework for development and management of the memorial. The site boundaries would contain 1,335 acres, including the crash site, the debris field, and the area where human remains were found, as well as those lands necessary for providing visitor amenities. Lands that would provide for access to the site from US 30 are also included. An additional 907 acres would comprise the perimeter view shed around the core visitor lands. The perimeter lands would be obtained via easement or other means that would allow for private ownership. The proposed action would transform the reclaimed mining site as a memorial landscape based upon a design selected from an international design competition. The plan would involve full development of the site into a memorial landscape, which would include an 8,000-square-foot visitor center and a new entrance directly from US 30. Annual visitation would be expected to peak at 400,000 visitors during the tenth anniversary (2011) of the terrorist attacks and then stabilize at 230,000 visitors per year over the long-term. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action Alternative, which would maintain the memorial under current management direction. Land acquisition, initial development, and annual operating costs for the memorial are estimated at $8.0 million, $450,000, and $750,000, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure that the National park Service, the Flight 93 Advisory Commission, the Families of Flight 93, and the Flight 93 Memorial Task Force, as well as the public at large, would have clear understanding of the mission of the Flight 93 National Memorial. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Memorial development would require alteration of site topography and visual aesthetics, removal of some vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected species, loss of small wetland areas, alteration of cultural resources at the site LEGAL MANDATES: Flight 93 National Memorial Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-226), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060209, 237 pages, May 18, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 06-23
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Flight 93 National Memorial
KW  - Pennsylvania
KW  - Flight 93 National Memorial Act of 2002, Project Authorization
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16359876?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-05-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLIGHT+93+NATIONAL+MEMORIAL%2C+SOMERSET%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=FLIGHT+93+NATIONAL+MEMORIAL%2C+SOMERSET%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Somerset, Pennsylvania; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 18, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - U.S. HIGHWAY 160 FROM DURANGO TO BAYFIELD, LA PLATA COUNTY, COLORADO.
AN  - 36339754; 12069
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of 16.2 miles of highway within the US 160 corridor in La Plata County, Colorado is proposed. The new roadway would extend from milepost (MP) 88, east of Durango, to MP 104.2, east of Bayfield. Approximately 1.2 miles of the project would run along the US 550 corridor, extending from MP 16.6, located at the US 160/US 550 (south) intersection, to MP 15.4, located south of the US 440/County Road (CR) 220 intersection. The project would extend the existing four-lane highway from Grandview east to Bayfield where it would transition to a two-lane highway. Beyond MP 104.2, the roadway already provides sufficient capacity and safety features to obviate the need for improvements through 2025. In Gem Villate, US 160 would be realigned to the south. From the western project limit to the proposed US 160/US 550 (south) intersection, a westbound auxiliary land and an eastbound climbing land would be required. In addition, the project would realign approximately 1.2 miles of US 550 south of US 160; the realigned section of US 550 would be improved to a four-lane highway. The US 160/US 550 (south) intersection as an interchange. Grade separation of this intersection would provide the best option to address the reconnection of US 160 and US 550 due to terrain and traffic volume. US 610 intersections with CR 233 (west) and State Highway 172/CR 284 as interchanges. The US 160 intersections with CR 233 (east), CR 232 (west), and CR 232 (east) would be eliminated, with CR 233 passing beneath US 160. The CR 222/CR 223 (west) intersection with US 160 would be signalized. Improvements would be made to the existing US 160/CR 501 intersection. Numerous direct access points to US 160 would be consolidated or improved to provide access control. This final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives for each of four corridor units into which the project was divided. The preferred alternative would generally follow the existing alignment along the US 160 corridor. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve conditions for the traveling public along US 160 along the project corridor. More specifically, the project would increase travel efficiency and capacity to meet current and future needs, improve safety for the traveling public by reducing the number and severity of accidents, and provide for controlled access to the highway corridors affected. Intersections with county roads would be upgraded to meet current design standards. Design features, such as alignment shifts, retaining walls, and reduced median widths would reduce impacts to important environmental resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residents and businesses as well as 21 acres of wetlands and associated wildlife habitat and non-wetland habitat, including meadow habitat for a federally protected bird species, the southwestern willow flycatcher. Raptor and migratory birds are likely to next in the corridor. Nine historic properties would be affected by rights-of-way development. 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 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0127D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 060197, 1,077 pages and maps, May 15, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-05-02-F
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36339754?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-05-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+HIGHWAY+160+FROM+DURANGO+TO+BAYFIELD%2C+LA+PLATA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=U.S.+HIGHWAY+160+FROM+DURANGO+TO+BAYFIELD%2C+LA+PLATA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 15, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DEVERS-PALO VERDE NO. 2 TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, NORTH PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO PALO VERDE, AND ARIZONA.
AN  - 36344899; 12053
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Grant Permit are proposed for the construction of a 500-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line extending from the Devers substation in North Palm Springs, California to the Harquahala substation near the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona. The 230-mile transmission line would follow the existing Southern California Edison Company's (SCE) 500-kV transmission line (Devers-Palo Verde No. 1 (DVP1)). The project would also include upgrades to an additional 50 miles of 230-kV transmission lines west of the Devers substation. Forty miles of 230-kV line from Devers to San Bernardino Junction at the western end of San Timoteo Canyon would be reconfigured and two separate 230-kV corridors, from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Mountain View substation and from San Bernardino Junction to SCE's Vista substation, would be reconstructured. Ancillary facilities to be provided would include a substation 10 miles southwest of Blythe, California and adjacent to the DPV2 line; a new optical repeater facility three miles west of Blythe within the DPV2 rights-of-way, two series capacitor banks, each located adjacent to an existing DPV1 series capacitor bank; a dead-end structure, circuit breakers, and disconnect switches at the Harquahala and Devers switchyards; telecommunications systems for the operation and maintenance of the transmission lines; a 500-kV shunt line reactor bank and associated disconnect switches within Devers substation; and special protection scheme relays at Devers, Padua, and Vista substations in California and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Hassayampa, and Harquahala switchyards in Arizona. Though the transmission line alignment would largely follow an existing SCE easement, the line would traverse federal BLM land in both California and Arizona where additional rights-of-way might need to be acquired, resulting in the need for the abovementioned BLM permit. Moreover, Arizona state authorities must issue a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility for the project. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action Alternative and transmission routing alternatives and location alternatives for ancillary facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new line would increase California's electric power import capability, thereby enhancing the competitive energy market and supporting the energy market in the Southwest U.S. and providing increased reliability, insurance value, and operating flexibility to the regional grids. Construction of the new facilities would employ 211 workers, while the upgrade component of the project would employ 174 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in temporary disturbance or permanent loss of sensitive desert vegetation communities and listed and sensitive plant and animal species. The new transmission line would traverse 85 perennial and intermittent streams, including the Colorado River at the Arizona border. The upgrade segment traverses 40 water bodies, most of which are intermittent. The additional transmission line within the DPV1 corridor would add to the risk of collision by raptors and other avian species and exacerbate the degradation of aesthetic, historic, archaeologic, and other cultural and recreational values effected by the corridor facilities on the desert landscape. Numerous individual landowners, agricultural operations, business interests, and communities would be affected by the presence of the transmission line and substation facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060181, Environmental Analysis (Part 1)--578 pages and maps, Environmental Analysis (Part 2)--799 pages and maps, Appendices--466 pages and maps, May 10, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 06-20
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Birds
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344899?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-05-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVERS-PALO+VERDE+NO.+2+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+PALO+VERDE%2C+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.title=DEVERS-PALO+VERDE+NO.+2+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+PALO+VERDE%2C+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, North Palm Springs, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 10, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT ALTERNATIVE INTAKE PROJECT, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 36346164; 12049
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an alternative drinking water intake structure for the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) in the central San Joaquin Delta, Contra Costa County, California are proposed. CCWD's million is to obtain water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and deliver treated and untreated water to approximately 500,000 people in central and eastern Contra Costa County. Water quality in the Delta at CCWD's existing intakes currently does not meet CCWD's water quality objectives for extended periods each year, requiring CCWD to use the higher-quality water stored in Los Vaqueros Reservoir to blend with the directly diverted Delta water to meet CCWD's quality objectives. The reservoir is used particularly to reduce salinity in the water taken from the Delta. However, even with the blending benefits of the reservoir, CCWD expects that water quality objectives will not be met during extended periods of high salinity in the Delta and expects these periods to occur more frequently in the future as statewide demands on the Delta increase. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 1) would provide for a new 250-cubic-foot-per-second (cfs) screened water intake and pump station located along the lower third of the Victoria Canal on Victoria Island in the central Delta where water quality is typically better than at CCWD's existing intakes. A buried pipeline would carry the water 12,000 to 14,000 feet from the new intake structure across Victoria Island and beneath Old River and tie into CCWD's existing Old River conveyance system on Byron Tract. The intake would involve adding a new point of diversion to certain existing water rights held by CCWD and by the Bureau of Reclamation. CCWD would not seek to increase its water rights, Central Valley Project contract amounts, or permitted Los Vaqueros Reservoir filling rates through the proposed action. The new intake would change the location, timing, and quality of some of CCWD's diversions, but would not increase the overall total diversion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve delivered water quality, particularly during drought periods, protect and improve health and/or aesthetic benefits to consumers, improve operational flexibility, and protect delivered water quality during emergencies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The intake structure and pump station would displace six to eight acres of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance. Pipeline construction would destroy vegetation and disturb soils in the short-term, but these ecological values would be recovered after construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). and Public Law 108-361.
JF  - EPA number: 060177, 637 pages, CD-ROM, May 5, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 06-21
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Pumping Plants
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Salinity Control
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
KW  - Los Vaqueros Reservoir
KW  - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 108-361, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346164?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONTRA+COSTA+WATER+DISTRICT+ALTERNATIVE+INTAKE+PROJECT%2C+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CONTRA+COSTA+WATER+DISTRICT+ALTERNATIVE+INTAKE+PROJECT%2C+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ELK AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK, COLORADO.
AN  - 36346091; 12037
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an elk and vegetation management plan for the Rocky Mountain National Park of Colorado is proposed. The park provides exceptional accessibility to a wild landscape with dramatic scenery, opportunities for solitude and tranquility, wildlife viewing, and a variety of other recreational opportunities. Elk populations in the park are far in excess of the high end of the natural variation range. Moreover, the elk have become overly concentrated in inappropriate areas, leading, among other problems, to the spread of a wasting disease that affects the park herds and drastically reducing stands of riparian willow and aspen, thereby upsetting the ecological balance of the park's ecosystem. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. All action alternatives address elk population numbers, vegetation management, adaptive management, monitoring and data collection, the humane treatment of elk, the distribution of meat from carcasses of elk affected by wasting disease to individuals in accordance with National Park Service health guidelines, protection of wilderness values in areas where management measures occur within designated wilderness, and public education. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would involve removal of elk using lethal means to reach a population target range at the lower end of the natural range of variation, which is between 1,200 and 1,700 elk. Reduction targets would be aggressive, removing 200 to 700 elk in the first four years to reduce the size of the population drastically, followed by less intensive yearly reductions of 25 to 150 elk each year of 16 years. The use of redistribution techniques and limited aspen fencing would also be required to meet vegetation objectives. Given appropriate interagency cooperation, redistribution techniques could include adaptive use of wolves as a management tool. Alternative 3 would rely on gradual lethal reduction of elk over time to achieve a high target elk population at the high end of the natural range of variation, between 1,600 and 2,100 animals. Inside the park, 100 to 200 elk would be removed annually over 20 years. The higher elk population target under this alternative would require additional measures, including aspen and montane riparian willow fencing and redistribution techniques to meet vegetation objectives. Alternative 4 would employ fertility control agents on elk to achieve a target elk population at the higher end of the natural range of variation, between 1,600 and 2,100. Lethal reduction of 80 to 150 elk per year would supplement fertility control. The higher population would require the same vegetation management measures as alternative 3. Alternative 5, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, would release a limited number of gray wolves in the park to be intensively managed and allowed to increase to a maximum population of 14 in a phased approach. Lethal reduction would decrease the elk population to the higher end of the natural range of variation, between 1,600 and 2,100 animals, during the first four years. Up to 100 elk would be lethally removed annually over the following 16 years to meet the natural range of variation, between 1,200 and 2,100 elk, depending on the wolves' effectiveness in redistributing elk. A limited extent of aspen fencing could also be required to meet vegetation objectives. Annual cost of the preferred alternative ranges from $1.06 million to $1.17 million; these figures represent the high and los ends of the elk reduction range, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would restore the elk population to the level that would be expected under natural conditions to the extent possible, maintaining a free-roaming population, decreasing the level of habituation to humans, restoring the population size to a level allowing it to fluctuate within the natural range of variation of between 1,200 and 2,100 elk, and redistributing elk to disperse high density subpopulations. The natural range of variation in vegetation conditions on the elk range would be restored or maintained to the extent possible by preventing loss of aspen clones within high elk use areas, restoring sustainable montane riparian willow, and reducing the level of elk grazing on herbaceous vegetation. Scientific data on the prevalence of the chronic wasting disease affecting elk in the park to ensure that the plan does not conflict with disease management measures. Elk viewing opportunities would continue to be provided. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Helicopters used to cull elk would generate uncharacteristic noise in the park, disturbing the pristine aspect of the park for recreationists. Lethal culling of elk would be an affront to persons who have ethical qualms regarding the killing of animals. Fences would interfere with the movement of wildlife species and detract from the wilderness values of the park. Reduction in the numbers of elk would decrease visitation to the park, as most visitors expect to be able to view elk in their natural habitat when coming to the park. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060165, 525 pages, April 26, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 06-14
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Rocky Mountain National Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346091?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-04-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ELK+AND+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ROCKY+MOUNTAIN+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=ELK+AND+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ROCKY+MOUNTAIN+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Estes Park, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 26, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA.
AN  - 36347402; 12033
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to over selection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and in some areas uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be loss restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered general lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060161, Volume 1--441 pages and maps, Volume 2--398 pages, Distribution List-12 pages, April 25, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 06-08
KW  - Exploration
KW  - Fish
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Subsistence
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347402?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FOLSOM DAM ROAD ACCESS RESTRICTION, FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2005).
AN  - 36339703; 12035
AB  - PURPOSE: The construction of a permanent bridge and roadway across the American River immediately downstream of the Folsom Dam in California is proposed. The continued closure of Folsom Dam Road across the American River was proposed by a final EIS issued in April 2005. The Bureau of Reclamation indefinitely closed Folsom Dam Road for security reasons on February 28, 2003, to preserve and protect the core mission of the dam and reservoir and to assure the ultimate safety of the public downstream of the facility. The closure followed a series of security reviews, including a final review conducted by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and subsequent full-scale analysis and evaluation of the agency's recommendations The evaluation determined that continued uncontrolled access along Folsom Dam Road presented a security risk to the facility and the public. Prior to its closure, Folsom Dam Road served as one of the three key routes across the American River water bodies of Lake Natoma and Folsom Lake. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would reopen the road to public use, were considered in the final EIS of April 2005. Two alternatives would have involved restricted or controlled access across the road. The preferred alternative would restrict access across the bridge to Monday through Friday during morning and evening peak hours (6:00 SM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM). Two-way traffic flow would be allowed during these hours. Vehicles would be restricted to cars, motorcycles, and noncommercial pickup trucks. The desired hourly volume would be 1,500 vehicles. Also evaluated with respect to future cumulative conditions of the preferred alternative is the construction of a new bridge parallel to and below the Folsom Dam Road, which, if completed, would carry much of the traffic that formerly crossed the dam road. This bridge component is addressed in this draft supplement to the final EIS, which considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1). All action alternatives would provide for a four-lane bridge. Under Alternative 2, the bridge would be accessed by four-lane roadways and full intersections at either end. Under alternatives 3 through 5, the bridge would be accessed via a two-lane roadways and a partial intersection on the east only or partial intersections on both approaches. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Road use restrictions proposed by the final EIS would ensure the safety of the dam against terrorist attack, protecting the public, as well as land and structures, downstream of the dam from devastating flooding. Removal of the full closure order would allow safe passage across the river during peak hours. The new bridge would allow unimpeded access across the American River in the vicinity of the dam year-round at all times. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Until the new bridge was constructed, restricted access to the existing bridge would significantly restrict access across the river, increasing already significant congestion on both sides of the reservoir and, in some cases, preventing the movement of goods and people. Bridge and approach construction would result in the loss of 30.2 to 33.9 acres of oak woodland, 5.46 acres of riparian lands, and 2.28 to 2.51 acres of wetlands. White-tailed kites and purple martins could be temporarily disturbed during construction and 152 to 154 elderberry shrubs would be lost; both of these species are federally protected. Construction emissions would exceed federal air quality standards. Visual aesthetics along the river corridor in the vicinity of the bridge would be degraded. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Development Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-137). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 05-0393D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 05-0635F, Volume 29, Number 4, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 060163, Draft Supplemental EIS--384 pages and maps, Appendices--427 pages, CD-ROM, April 24, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Forests
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - American River
KW  - Water Development Appropriations Act of 2004, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36339703?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-04-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+DAM+ROAD+ACCESS+RESTRICTION%2C+FOLSOM%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2005%29.&rft.title=FOLSOM+DAM+ROAD+ACCESS+RESTRICTION%2C+FOLSOM%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 24, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR CASTILO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT, ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA.
AN  - 16367398; 12027
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the 20-acre Castillo de San Marcos National Monument site in St. Augustine, Florida is proposed. The Castillo served primarily as an outpost of the Spanish Empire. It was subsequently held by the British and again by the Spanish, who held it until Florida was purchased from Spain in 1821. The fort also figures in the histories of the Civil War and the American Indian wars. The proposed plan, which would be the first general management for the monument, which was established in 1924 as the Fort Marion National Monument, would direct management of the site for the next 15 to 20 years. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would focus on the rehabilitation and maintenance of the historic character of the fort and the landscape to the greatest extent achievable while providing for greater on-site visitor services by locating the visitor center at the north end of the site. Alternative C would represent a greater effort t achieve a more historic character to the site when compared to Alternative B by removing non-historic elements from the fort casemates and landscape and by locating the visitor center off-site. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would focus on preservation of the fort through removal of ranger offices from the casemates and relocation of the offices to a new structure in the visitor center zone. The ticket booth and sales function would be relocated away from the fort entrance to a site compatible with the historic character of the fort. Alternative D would result in little change from existing conditions with respect to the landscape and the visitor parking lot and no visitor center would be provided. Additional parking would be available at a city parking garage currently under construction behind the existing visitor information center. First cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $757,200; annual costs at $1.48 million; and total 30-year costs at $45.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Archaeological and historic resources within the site would benefit from increased protection and enhanced interpretation. Visitation would contribute moderately to the economy of St. Augustine. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Visitation and other uses in the vicinity of the site would continue to affect archaeologic and historic resources adversely. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 6166, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625), Presidential Proclamation 1713, and Public Law 108-480.
JF  - EPA number: 060154, 122 pages, April 20, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 05-38
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Monuments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Castillo De San Marcos National Monument
KW  - Florida
KW  - Fort Marion National Monument
KW  - Executive Order 6166, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Presidential Proclamation 1713, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16367398?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+CASTILO+DE+SAN+MARCOS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+ST.+AUGUSTINE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+CASTILO+DE+SAN+MARCOS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+ST.+AUGUSTINE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Florida; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 20, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NAVAJO RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NAVAJO UNIT, SAN JUAN RIVER, NEW MEXICO, COLORADO, AND UTAH.
AN  - 16366805; 12029
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of modifications to the operational regime of the Navajo Dam and Reservoir on the San Juan River in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah is proposed. Current operations of the dam and reservoir affect the habitat of two endangered fish species, namely, the razorback sucker and the Colorado pike minnow (formerly known as the Colorado squawfish). After completion of the Navajo project in 1962, criteria governing releases of water from the dam focused primarily on meeting irrigation needs, providing flood control storage, and providing a recreational pool in the reservoir. However, native fish populations have been adversely affected or modified in part by construction and subsequent operation of the dam. In addition, Lake Powell's inundation of approximately 30 miles of the lower San Juan River has had significant impacts on native fish habitat. Introduction of non-native fish species, the past removal of native fish to create a more desirable recreational fishery, the contribution of diversion structures to these impacts, and in stream channel modifications have exacerbated the impacts on the endangered species. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative, known as the 250/5000 Alternative, would allow water projects within the basin for which consultations required under the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act have been completed. Such projects would also be required to comply with the local requirements of various local authorities, including those governing Native American tribes. The modifications proposed would require the projects to a limit minor unspecified minor depletions to 3,000 acre-feet. The operations of the Navajo Dam would be modified to provide sufficient releases to assist in the conservation of endangered fish and their designated critical habitat. Releases from the dam would range from 250 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 5,000 cfs. Releases would support water projects that have met the abovementioned consultations, including Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, Jicarilla Apache Nation Navajo River Water Supply Project, and Animas-La Plata Project the Jicarilla Apache contract with the Public Services Company of New Mexico, as well as 3,000 acre-feet of minor unspecified depletions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Modification of dam operations would provide sufficient releases of water at times, quantities, and durations necessary to conserve the two endangered fish species. The newly proposed dam operations would also allow development to proceed in the San Juan River basin in compliance with applicable laws, compacts, court decrees, and American Indian trust responsibilities. The plan would allow 56,130 acres of additional land to benefit from irrigation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fish habitat would be reduced an average of 34 percent in special regulation waters when flows drop from 500 to 250 cfs. physical habitat and water quality problems would likely be significant downstream of Citizens Ditch. Impacts on the reservoir trout fishery and the downstream release regime would reduce recreational fishing and rafting opportunities, respectively. The hydropower resources of the river would be adversely affected. Vegetation along the seven miles immediately downstream of the dam would decline due to flow reductions. Wetland and riparian vegetation and cultural resource sites would be damaged somewhat due to reservoir fluctuation. Releases would continue to result in bank erosion downstream of the dam. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0035D, Volume 27, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 060157, Final EIS--247 pages, Appendices--672 pages, Comments and Responses--5880 pages, April 20, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES-02-35
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Bank Protection
KW  - Dams
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Colorado
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - San Juan River
KW  - Utah
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16366805?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAVAJO+RESERVOIR+OPERATIONS%2C+NAVAJO+UNIT%2C+SAN+JUAN+RIVER%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+COLORADO%2C+AND+UTAH.&rft.title=NAVAJO+RESERVOIR+OPERATIONS%2C+NAVAJO+UNIT%2C+SAN+JUAN+RIVER%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+COLORADO%2C+AND+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Durango, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 20, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SURPRISE FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MODOC AND LASSEN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA AND WASHOE AND HUMBOLDT COUNTIES, NEVADA.
AN  - 36350121; 12025
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a multiple-use general resource management plan for the land and resources administered by the Surprise Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management in Modoc and Lassen counties, California and Washoe and Humboldt counties, Nevada is proposed. The service area encompasses approximately 2.4 million acres, though the planning and decision area for resources and resource uses within the proposed resource management plan encompasses only 1.2 million acres of public lands within the field office's administrative jurisdictional boundaries. Current management direction for the Alturas Field Office resources is contained in three land use plans or amendments developed in the 1870s and early 1980s. New information and changes to circumstances and resource conditions since these plans were formulated require the revision of the plans into a single updated resource management plan. Population growth in the vicinity of Llamath Falls and Lakeview, Oregon and the metropolitan areas of Reno, Nevada, and Redding, California has caused an increase demand for use of public lands to support community needs and low impact recreation. Vegetation communities continue to be threatened by encroachment of western juniper into and invasion of exotic annual grasses and noxious weeds. The number of plant and animal species recognized by California and Nevada as needing special protection has increased. New protocols must be implemented to protect and enhance cultural resource sites. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with upland ecosystems, forestry resources, water resources, visual resources, riparian areas and wetlands, wild land fire and prescribed fire, vehicular access, traditional practices and traditional cultural properties important to Native Americans, the needs of local communities, grazing and range management resources, land tenure, energy and mineral development entries, recreational opportunities, fish and wildlife habitat, and special values and special management areas. These issues are addressed in the five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, considered in this draft EIS. Proposed areas of critical environmental concern, suitable wild and scenic river segments, and cultural resource management areas are also recommended in the action alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide for appropriate development of field office resources, particularly energy and mineral resources, timber resources, water, 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 060152, 844 pages and maps, April 19, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES=2006-005+1790-1600
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geothermal Resources
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350121?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-04-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURPRISE+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MODOC+AND+LASSEN+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+WASHOE+AND+HUMBOLDT+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SURPRISE+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MODOC+AND+LASSEN+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+WASHOE+AND+HUMBOLDT+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedarville, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 19, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALTURAS FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, LASSEN, MODOC, SHASTA, AND SISKIYOU, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 16369906; 12023
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a multiple-use general resource management plan for the land and resources administered by the Alturas Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management in Lassen, Modoc, Shasta, and Siskiyou, California is proposed. The service area encompasses approximately 4.1 million acres, though the planning and decision area for resources and resource uses within the proposed resource management plan encompasses only 503,045 acres of public lands within the field office's administrative jurisdictional boundaries. Current management direction for the Alturas Field Office resources is contained in 10 land use plans or amendments developed between 1973 and 2002. New information and changes to circumstances and resource conditions since these plans were formulated require the revision of the plans into a single updated resource management plan. Population growth in the vicinity of Fall River Valley in Lassen and Shasta counties and the metropolitan areas of Klamath Falls, Oregon, Reno, Nevada, and Redding, California has caused an increase demand for use of public lands to support community needs and low impact recreation. Vegetation communities continue to be threatened by encroachment of western juniper into sagebrush-grasslands and invasion of exotic annual grasses and noxious weeds. The number of plant and animal species recognized by California as needing special protection has increased. New protocols must be implemented to protect and enhance cultural resource sites. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with upland ecosystems, forestry resources, water resources, visual resources, riparian areas and wetlands, wild land fire and prescribed fire, vehicular access, traditional practices and traditional cultural properties important to Native Americans, the needs of local communities, grazing and range management resources, land tenure, energy and mineral development entries, recreational opportunities, fish and wildlife habitat, special values and special management areas, air quality, paleontological resources, and organization of the resource management planning process. These issues are addressed in the five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, considered in this draft EIS. Proposed areas of critical environmental concern, suitable wild and scenic river segments, and cultural resource management areas are also recommended in the action alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide for appropriate development of field office resources, particularly energy and mineral resources, timber resources, water, 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 060150, Volume 1--851 pages and maps, Volume 2--202 pages and maps, April 19, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2006-005+1790-1600
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Acquisitions
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  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16369906?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-04-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTURAS+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LASSEN%2C+MODOC%2C+SHASTA%2C+AND+SISKIYOU%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ALTURAS+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LASSEN%2C+MODOC%2C+SHASTA%2C+AND+SISKIYOU%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Susanville, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 19, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EAGLE LAKE FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, LASSEN, PLUMAS, AND SIERRA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA AND WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 16366754; 12024
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a multiple-use general resource management plan for the land and resources administered by the Eagle Lake Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management in Lassen, Plumas, and Sierra counties, California and Washoe County, Nevada is proposed. The service area encompasses approximately 4.9 million acres, though the planning and decision area for resources and resource uses within the proposed resource management plan encompasses only 1.0 million acres of public lands within the field office's administrative jurisdictional boundaries. Current management direction for the Alturas Field Office resources is contained in 10 land use plans or amendments developed between 1973 and 2002. New information and changes to circumstances and resource conditions since these plans were formulated require the revision of the plans into a single updated resource management plan. Population growth in the vicinity of Fall River Valley in Lassen and Shasta counties and the metropolitan areas of Klamath Falls, Oregon, Reno, Nevada, and Redding, California has caused an increase demand for use of public lands to support community needs and low impact recreation. Vegetation communities continue to be threatened by encroachment of western juniper into sagebrush-grasslands and invasion of exotic annual grasses and noxious weeds. The number of plant and animal species recognized by California and Nevada as needing special protection has increased. New protocols must be implemented to protect and enhance cultural resource sites. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with upland ecosystems, forestry resources, water resources, visual resources, riparian areas and wetlands, wild land fire and prescribed fire, vehicular access, traditional practices and traditional cultural properties important to Native Americans, the needs of local communities, grazing and range management resources, land tenure, energy and mineral development entries, recreational opportunities, fish and wildlife habitat, and special values and special management areas. These issues are addressed in the five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, considered in this draft EIS. Proposed areas of critical environmental concern, suitable wild and scenic river segments, and cultural resource management areas are also recommended in the action alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide for appropriate development of field office resources, particularly energy and mineral resources, timber resources, water, 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 060151, Volume 1--855 pages and maps, Volume 2--244 pages and maps, April 19, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-206-005+1790-1600
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geothermal Resources
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16366754?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-04-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+LAKE+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LASSEN%2C+PLUMAS%2C+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+WASHOE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=EAGLE+LAKE+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LASSEN%2C+PLUMAS%2C+AND+SIERRA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+WASHOE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Susanville, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 19, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - HUNTING PROGRAM AT THE CAPE COD NATIONAL SEASHORE, BARNSTABLE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS.
AN  - 36340065; 12016
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the hunting management program for the Cape Cod National Seashore in Barnstable County, Massachusetts is proposed. The 44,000-acre seashore lies within the outer arm of the Cape Cod peninsula. Major species of interest to hunters in the area include deer, pheasant, rabbit, and waterfowl. Pheasant are not native to Cape Cod and must be stocked. The existence of pheasant populations results in the loss of food and damage of habitat for native species and could lead to the spread of disease from pheasant to native birds. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to natural resources, including wildlife special status species, natural communities, and vegetation; customary hunting activities; public use for recreational and educational purposes; socioeconomic values, management and operational concerns with respect to the administration of seashore resources; and issues surrounding nonfederal lands within the seashore. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would provide for an improved hunting program, while Alternative C would eliminate hunting from the seashore. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, would reestablish the pheasant stocking and hunting program, with modifications to the previous program focusing on adaptive management and addressing public concerns. The pheasant stocking component would be phased out eventually. Adaptive management provisions would alter pheasant hunting stipulations according to hunter interest, habitat quality, and potential conflicts. The number of pheasant stocked each year would be determined annually based on hunting pressure and adaptive management objectives. Take and stocking efforts would be monitored to ensure that the number of stocked pheasants would be approximately equal to the take. Take by predators other than hunters would be minimized. Evaluations would occur on a five-year basis. Pheasant hunting would be phased out as the numbers of upland game birds increases, providing increased hunting opportunities with respect to native game birds. After 15 years, pheasant stocking and hunting would be discontinued independent of upland game restoration activities. Medications would be withdrawn from pheasants according to the drug's prescribed withdrawal period certifying the health of the birds released. The scope of hunting areas would be simplified and specific hunting areas would be designated, reversing the current policy of allowing hunting in all areas except where specifically prohibited. Areas removed from hunting would decrease the total area available to hunting by 1,546 acres; most of the areas removed from hunting cannot be hunted at present. A total of 29,581 acres would be open to hunting, leaving 14,000 acres on which hunting would be closed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: While retaining most of the existing opportunities, the preferred alternative would add a spring turkey hunting season. manage pheasant adaptively, and increase habitat and hunting opportunities with respect to other upland game birds. The plan would clarify and simplify the areas open and closed to hunting, improve information provided to hunters and non-hunters, and provide improved communications with state wildlife authorities with respect to monitoring. Cultural heritage associated with hunting on the Outer Cape would be preserved and enhanced. Closure of hunting on small parcels and within buffer areas along bike paths would enhance public safety within the seashore. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Phasing out of pheasant populations and hunting would remove this resource, eliminating hunting opportunities on the Outer Cape. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 87-126.
JF  - EPA number: 060143, 261 pages, April 14, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Birds
KW  - Hunting Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Shores
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Cape Cod National Seashore
KW  - Massachusetts
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 87-126, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36340065?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-04-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HUNTING+PROGRAM+AT+THE+CAPE+COD+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+BARNSTABLE+COUNTY%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=HUNTING+PROGRAM+AT+THE+CAPE+COD+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+BARNSTABLE+COUNTY%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Wellfleet, Massachusetts; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 14, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY EXPANSION/MODERNIZATION PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 16359444; 12012
AB  - PURPOSE: The modernization and expansion of the United States Gypsum Company (USG) gypsum processing and wallboard manufacturing facility and the associated Plaster City Quarry in Imperial County, California are proposed. The quarry is located in the western portion of the county at the northwest end of the Fish Creek Mountains, east of Split Mountain and southwest of the Fish Creek Wash. Imperial County lies within the Colorado Desert. The quarry occupies 1,640 acres of private lands, 380 acres of claims on federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and 28 acres of mill sites. Water for plant operations is delivered via an eight-inch pipeline extending from a well field eight miles west of Plaster City in the Ocotillo-Coyote Wells Groundwater Basin. USG produces wallboard and related gypsum products at the Plaster City Plant, located 18 miles west of the city of El Centro. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to hydrology and water quality, air quality, traffic circulation, biologic resources, geologic resources, paleontologic resources, public health and safety, acoustics, visual aesthetics, cultural sites, hazardous materials, and land use. USG's plan would incorporate a reclamation program designed to minimize erosion, re-establish vegetation and wildlife habitat, and mitigate the aesthetic impacts resulting from mining. In addition to the USG's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two alternatives regarding use of water from the Imperial Irrigation District. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the facilities and the quarry would help maintain a viable mining industry in the region and contribute to the nation's capacity to produce domestic mineral resource products. The new facilities and expanded quarry would allow USG to maximize the use of known gypsum resources, expand production and employment opportunities, and maximize the return on the company's capital investment. The expanded facilities would add 85 jobs to the USG employment rolls. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Quarry and plant expansion and replacement of the water pipeline would destroy desert vegetation, remove soils, and result in the loss of the associated wildlife habitat. Slope stability would be affected in some areas of excavation. Increased pumping from the well field could result in drawdown of the regional aquifer and degrade water quality in the aquifer. Increased pumping at the quarry site could result in vertical migration of saline water into the groundwater table. Operations at the quarry and the plant could result in emissions of particulate matter that would exceed government air quality standards. Exhaust emissions could also exceed thresholds of significance. Visual aesthetics associated with desert land, which could be considered for wilderness designation, in the vicinity of the quarry would be significantly degraded, and noise levels would increase. Plant employees would be exposed to hazardous materials and the risk of explosions. Cultural resources, including historic, prehistoric, and ethnic values, could be disturbed or destroyed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980.
JF  - EPA number: 060138, Draft EIS--721 pages and maps, Appendices--852 pages, April 12, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Archaeological Sites Surveys
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Noise
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Quarries
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance
KW  - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance
KW  - National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16359444?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-04-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UNITED+STATES+GYPSUM+COMPANY+EXPANSION%2FMODERNIZATION+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UNITED+STATES+GYPSUM+COMPANY+EXPANSION%2FMODERNIZATION+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 12, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND ASSOCIATED NATURAL COMMUNITY PLAN AND SANTA ROSA AND SAN JOACINITO MOUNTAINS TRAILS PLAN, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 16366538; 12009
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a multi-species habitat conservation plan, an associated natural community conservation, and a trails plans for the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains are proposed in Riverside County, California. The Coachella Valley s the westernmost extension of the Colorado River subunit of the Sonoran Desert and provides unique and diverse habitats that support many highly specialized species or plants and animals. The multi-species habitat conservation plan and natural community conservation plan would encompass 1.2 million acres and provide for a net planning area of 1.1 million acres, excluding Indian reservation lands not covered by the plan. the planning area extends from the Cabazon area of the San Gorgonio Pass in the northwest to lands surrounding the northern portions of the Salton Sea to the southeast. The planning area also includes mountainous areas and most of he associated watersheds surrounding the valley floor. The plan would provide for a conservation preserve system encompassing 725,780 acres of existing public and private conservation lands and the acquisition and/or management of 187,780 acres of additional conservation lands. The plans are in response to the application for an incidental take permit for species related to activities that have the potential to result in take, pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and its implementing regulations and policies. Six Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would seek commitments by local, state, and federal agencies to implement the multi-species plan, acquire land and develop land management strategies by governments at all levels, provide for permanent preserve protection and management of habitats and populations of plant and animal species conserved in the Coachella Valley planning area, issue take permits in exchange for the i9mplementtation of an integrated conservation strategy and maintenance of the preserve system, seek issuance of take permits from federal and state authorities to permit land use and development that disturbs target species' habitats and natural communities covered under the plan, and incorporate amendments to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan into the multi-species plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The overall management scheme would help maintain and enhance the biological diversity and ecosystem processes in the area, while allowing for future economic growth within the Coachella Valley. Plan implementation would provide for permanent open space, community edges, and recreational opportunities and otherwise contribute to the community character of the valley. Enhancement of recreational resources would also enhance one of the area's most valuable economic resources, namely, tourism. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Land uses and developments in some areas would be significantly limited, impeding economic growth in some cases. Incidental take of federally protected species would result in the loss of individuals, but the efforts to protect species at the population level would not be affected. Periodic drain and flood control activity would alter natural flooding and other hydrologic processes, and the use of off-highway vehicles in the area would damage natural communities. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 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 05-0199D, Volume 29, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 060134, Volume 1--2,201 pages, Volume 2--89 pages, Volume 3--921 pages and maps, Volume 4a--682 pages, Volume 4b--661 pages, April 11, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 06-04
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Trails
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - California
KW  - Sonoran Desert
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16366538?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COACHELLA+VALLEY+MULTIPLE+SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN+AND+ASSOCIATED+NATURAL+COMMUNITY+PLAN+AND+SANTA+ROSA+AND+SAN+JOACINITO+MOUNTAINS+TRAILS+PLAN%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=COACHELLA+VALLEY+MULTIPLE+SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN+AND+ASSOCIATED+NATURAL+COMMUNITY+PLAN+AND+SANTA+ROSA+AND+SAN+JOACINITO+MOUNTAINS+TRAILS+PLAN%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 11, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - BROWNS PARK ROAD, FROM RED CREEK TO COLORADO STATE LINE, DAGGETT COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 16361555; 12000
AB  - PURPOSE: The reconstruction and partial realignment of Browns Park Road from Red Creek in Daggett County in Utah to the Utah/Colorado line at Colorado Route 318 are proposed. The newly paved highway, which is currently a maintained gravel road, would extend 16 to 16.8 miles. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, in this final EIS. The action alternatives would fail to conform with the resource management plan of the Bureau of Land Management for the Diamond Mountain Resource Area, requiring an amendment to the plan to provide for the new transportation corridor and for visual resource considerations. The proposed new facility would be 30 feet wide, providing two lanes and allowing for a 30- to 40-mile-per-hour design speed. Rights-of-way would be approximately 100 feet wide. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would generally following the existing Browns Park Road, excepting the Jesse Ewing Canyon portion that would be routed to the west to lengthen the road course, reduce grades, and generally provide a safer travel route; this is the locally preferred alternative. Alternative B would generally follow the existing alignment, excepting the Jesse Ewing Canyon section, where the road would provide for a 12-percent grade and swing further east and west from the existing alignment to lengthen the course and lessen the grade. Estimated costs of alternatives A and B are 17.1 million and $21.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a safer, more efficient transportation facility that would comply with American Association of State Highway and State Officials standards. The new facility would connect logical termini by linking a currently paved portion of Browns Park Road in Utah, which junctions with US 919 near the Utah-Wyoming border, to Colorado State Route 318. The road would improve access to recreational, agricultural, and commercial developments in the Green River and Flaming Gorge from areas in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the action alternative considered, the project would disturb 203 to 218 acres during construction, though only 180.6 to 195.8 acres would lie within the permanent rights-of-way; 58 to 61 acres, all of which provides wildlife habitat for deer and grouse, would not be reclaimed. The project would displace 0.29 acre of wetland at Willow Creek and require filling of 5,980 to 6,120 linear feet of ephemeral channel and possibly 1,900 linear feet of intermittent channel. The Green River would lose 243 acre-feet of water (0.02 percent of the average flow) over the life of the project. Five to six grazing allotments would lose some forage production capacity. Vandalism potential at three historic and three prehistoric sites would increase somewhat. The project would degrade visual resources and otherwise impact the recreational experience along the corridor, which includes the Green River, included in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers. Traffic noise would increase somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0238D, Volume 29, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 060128, 667 pages and maps, April 7, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-04-02-F
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Highways
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Noise
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Streams
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16361555?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-04-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BROWNS+PARK+ROAD%2C+FROM+RED+CREEK+TO+COLORADO+STATE+LINE%2C+DAGGETT+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BROWNS+PARK+ROAD%2C+FROM+RED+CREEK+TO+COLORADO+STATE+LINE%2C+DAGGETT+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 7, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON (ERRATA FOR THE DRAFT EIS).
AN  - 36345781; 12008
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. This attachment to the draft EIS on the project provides corrected pages replacing the sections covering the purpose and need of the project and related introductory material. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in the draft EIS. Four of the development alternatives, A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060122, 7 pages, April 5, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36345781?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28ERRATA+FOR+THE+DRAFT+EIS%29.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28ERRATA+FOR+THE+DRAFT+EIS%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 5, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE TRUST ACQUISITION CASINO PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 16361535; 11994
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition in trust of eight parcels encompassing 151.87 acres in Clark County, Washington by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposed to allow for the development by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe of a casino-resort complex. The proposal would also include the issuance of a reservation proclamation and the approval of a gaming development and management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The site located approximately two miles west of the city of La Center, three miles northeast of Ridgefield, and four miles south of Woodland. The site is bisected by Northwest 319th Street, which runs east-west through the property. Five development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this draft EIS. Four of the development alternatives, A through D, would involve use of the abovementioned parcels of land. Alternatives A and B, the preferred alternatives, would provide for the construction of a gaming, entertainment, and hotel complex encompassing 1.2 million square feet of floor space. The complex would provide for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and Class III (Nevada style) gaming and activities. Additional component would include parking facilities, a recreational vehicle park, wastewater treatment plant, and tribal facilities (offices, a cultural center, and elder housing). Under Alternative A, Northwest 319th Street would be rerouted through the southern half of the property; under Alternative B, 319th Street would not be rerouted. Alternative C would reduce the size of the complex to 809,728 square feet of floor space; 318th Street would continue to run along its current alignment. Alternative D would provide for the construction of a business park for office, industrial flex-space, and accessory commercial uses on the same site to be used for alternatives A through C. The facilities would encompass 1.6 million square feet of space and provide parking for 3,700 vehicles. Alternative E would involve placing a 1.2-million-square-foot casino-resort with VLTs and Class III gaming and activities at a 163-acre site located adjacent to the Ridgefield interchange of Interstate 5, two miles south of the site described above. Additional facilities would include those associated with alternatives A and B. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino-resort would advance the BIA's self-determination policy of promoting the tribe's self-governance capacity by facilitating the establishment of a land base for the tribe that would be developed to improve the long-term economic vitality and self-governance of the tribe and its members through the creation of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenue generated from the proposed economic development would be used to support a variety of fundamental governmental, administrative, operational, social, and educational programs to benefit tribal members, including the building of governmental offices, a cultural career center, and elder housing. Under the preferred alternatives, 4,011 jobs would be generated over the construction period, resulting in a total payroll of $185.3 million. Operation of the development would employ 3,151 workers, resulting in a average annual wage of $88.1 million. Sales tax on construction purchases would amount to $39.3 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would result in the displacement of 98.4 acres of land suitable for agricultural development. Other vegetation land, providing habitat for wildlife, would be lost as well. Eight species of federally protected fish could be impacted by changes in water quality due to increases in impervious surface at the site, resulting in increase in runoff containing toxic materials. One seasonal stream would be affected due to filling of less than 0.05 acre of its channel Rerouting of Northwest 319th Street would require the county to vacate the existing corridor and accept the new rights-of-way location. Property values on residences near the casino site could decline due to noise and light emanating from the site. One other casino facility in the area would suffer economically due to the presence of a competing facility. Additional traffic generated by the casino would significantly degrade the level of service of the local road transportation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060122, 712 pages and maps, April 5, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Fish
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Roads
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Streams
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Washington
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16361535?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=COWLITZ+INDIAN+TRIBE+TRUST+ACQUISITION+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 5, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CAPITAL BELTWAY STUDY, FROM I-95/I-395/I-495 INTERCHANGE TO AMERICAN LEGION BRIDGE, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
AN  - 16356890; 12026
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 14-mile section of Interstate 495 (I-495), also known as the Capital Beltway, in Fairfax County, Virginia is proposed. The study corridor extends from the I-95/I-395/I-495 interchange to the American Legion Bridge. The Beltway was originally designed to serve through traffic bypassing the District of Columbia. However, since its completion in 1964, the growth of the metropolitan area and changes in travel patterns have made the Beltway an integral part of the regional transportation system. Rather than functioning as a bypass, the facility is now used primarily for travel to and from destinations within the region. The highway carries more traffic than any other road in Virginia. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS. This final EIS gives detailed consideration to the No-Build Alternative and the preferred alternative. The project would also include improvements to portions of roadways that intersect and connect to the Beltway via existing interchanges at Braddock Road, Little River Turnpike, Gallows Road, Arlington Boulevard, I-66, Leesburg Pike, Chain Bridge Road, Dulles Access/Toll Road, Georgetown Pike, and the George Washington Memorial Parkway. The build alternative would involve addition of varying numbers of high-occupancy vehicle lanes to the facility and options regarding the abovementioned interchange improvements. The preferred alternative would provide a 12-lane cross-section, with high-occupancy toll lanes. Rights-of-way acquisition and construction costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $7.6 million and $891 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for safer and more efficient travel on this circumferential route around the District of Columbia and complete the regional HOV network. Modifications to connecting and intersecting roadways would integrate the proposed Beltway and interchange improvements with existing or planned roadway designs and traffic patterns. The project would decrease cut-though traffic in local communities adjacent to the affected section of the Beltway. Air quality within the corridor would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require 153 acres of new rights-of-way, displacing three, 2.5 acres of land within five public parks, 3.03 acres of wetlands, 4,452 linear feet of stream, and 10.4 acres of floodplain. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 3,233 residential receptor sites; 2,943 residential sites would be protected by noise control barriers. 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 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0308D, Volume 26, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060153, Draft EIS--391 pages, Map supplement, April 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-04-05-F
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Noise Control
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Parks
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Safety
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Streams
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Virginia
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks
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/16356890?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPITAL+BELTWAY+STUDY%2C+FROM+I-95%2FI-395%2FI-495+INTERCHANGE+TO+AMERICAN+LEGION+BRIDGE%2C+FAIRFAX+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=CAPITAL+BELTWAY+STUDY%2C+FROM+I-95%2FI-395%2FI-495+INTERCHANGE+TO+AMERICAN+LEGION+BRIDGE%2C+FAIRFAX+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REVISIONS TO GRAZING REGULATIONS FOR THE PUBLIC LANDS (EXCLUSIVE OF ALASKA) (ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2004).
AN  - 36347369; 11976
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) grazing regulations for public lands, exclusive of Alaska, is proposed. The grazing regulations govern all public lands identified as suitable for livestock grazing, encompassing 160 million acres in the western United States. During the nine years since the implementation of the 1995 grazing reforms, a number of discrete concerns have been raised regarding the administration of grazing management. The proposed amendment would represent adjustments, rather than a major overhaul, of the fundamental structure of the grazing regulation regime. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative (Alternative 2), would provide for regulatory revisions falling into three categories: 1) improvement of working relations with grazing permittees and lessees; 2) protection of the health of rangelands, and increase administrative efficiency and effectiveness. Within category (1), the regime changes would address social, economic, and cultural considerations in the decision-making process; implement changes in grazing use; address range improvement ownership; and ensure cooperation with tribal, state, county, and local government-established grazing boards; review biological assessments and evaluations. Within category (2), the regime changes would address applications for temporary nonuse; strengthen the basis for rangeland health determinations; and require that the BLM take appropriate action as soon as practicable, with a time limit extending not beyond the start of the next grazing year. Within category (3), the regime changes would address conservation uses; clarify the definitions of grazing preference, permitted use, and active use and the definition and role of an interested public; incorporate water rights law, down to the level of state law, into management plans; define the concept of satisfactory performance of a permittee or lessee; alter the means of providing for changes in grazing use within the terms and conditions of a permit or lease; allow the assessment of service charges for crossing permits, transfer of grazing preference; applications for nonuse; and supplemental billing notices; address civil and criminal sanctions for prohibited acts; address grazing use pending resolution of appeals; and address biological assessments and evaluations in the grazing decision-making process. In addition to the preferred alternative, a modified proposal, and a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing regulatory regime, were considered in the final EIS of October 2004. This addendum to the final EIS responds to comments on several categories of environmental consequences and other miscellaneous issues associated with the proposal, and, where appropriate, discusses responsible opposing views not adequately discussed in the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Revisions to the 1995 reforms would streamline and increase the effectiveness and flexibility of the reforms. The regulations would promote better partnerships with grazing permittees, lessees, and advisory boards. Range vegetation, wetlands, and soils and the associated wildlife habitat would progress toward achievement of management objectives more rapidly, including a minor improvement in the fire regime. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some of the regulatory changes proposed would increase operator and BLM administrative costs. Ranchers would continue to face increasing stress related to public land grazing, providing for the inheritance of range access to the next generation; and sell ranches for amenity reasons and subdivision. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (P.L. 104-19), and Taylor Grazing Act of 1934.
JF  - EPA number: 060104, 62 pages, March 24, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: FES 04-39
KW  - Fires
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Arizona
KW  - California
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nevada
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Utah
KW  - Washington
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347369?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-03-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REVISIONS+TO+GRAZING+REGULATIONS+FOR+THE+PUBLIC+LANDS+%28EXCLUSIVE+OF+ALASKA%29+%28ADDENDUM+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2004%29.&rft.title=REVISIONS+TO+GRAZING+REGULATIONS+FOR+THE+PUBLIC+LANDS+%28EXCLUSIVE+OF+ALASKA%29+%28ADDENDUM+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 24, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COTTEREL WIND POWER PROJECT, CASSIA COUNTY, IDAHO
AN  - 36342175; 11975
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a rights-of-way application for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a wind energy facility along the Cotterel Mountains near the towns of Albion, Malta, and Burley in Vassia County, Idaho is proposed. The rights-of-way would lie within land administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The applicant, Windland, Inc. in partnership with Shell Wind Energy, Inc., a subsidiary of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, propose to provide a wind energy array along 16 miles of ridgeline along Cotterel Mountain, consisting of a single linear north-south string of turbines situated primarily on public lands. Key issues identified during scoping include sage grouse conservation, maintenance and protection of tribal treaty rights and heritage links to public land, migratory birds and raptors, threatened and endangered species, public access, visual resources, and consistency with the existing resource management plan. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C), which is a modification of the application's proposal (Alternative B, the 16-mile facility described above) would extend the facility along 14.5 miles of east and central ridgeline, providing a linear array of 81 to 98 turbines, depending on the size of the turbine design selected. Two sizes of turbines would be considered, with capacities of 1.5 megawatts and two to three megawatts. A single substation would be located midway along the central turbine string, and project energy would be delivered via a 138-kilovolt transmission interconnect line, extending 19.7 miles northeast from the substation down to the Raft River transmission line, following that rights-of-way to cross over the Snake River west of Minidoka Dam, turn northeasterly to connect to the existing Idaho Power transmission lines located north of Minidoka Dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The wind energy facility would provide an economically feasible, environmentally friendly electric generation source to provide and alternative form of renewable energy, replacing, to some extent, environmentally damaging sources such as fossil fuels and hydropower facilities. Construction activities would add $200 million directly to the local and regional economy, and the applicant would pay a one-time sales tax of $500,000. Annual operation costs would add another $4.5 million to the economy and provide some ongoing employment. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would involve disturbance of 368 acres of soils and vegetation and 203 acres of geologic subsurface; 165 acres would be reclaimed, leaving 203 acres permanently affected, including 162 acres of bighorn sheep, 165 acres of rangeland, 147 acres of sage grouse nesting, and 62 acres of mule deer habitat, as well as cliff chipmunk habitat and golden eagle nesting. Raptor and other bird mortalities, as well as bat mortalities, would increase significantly. the facility would mar the visual aesthetics and otherwise degrade recreational experience in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0473D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060103, 241 pages and maps, March 24, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FES 06-07
KW  - Birds
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Turbines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342175?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-03-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COTTEREL+WIND+POWER+PROJECT%2C+CASSIA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO&rft.title=COTTEREL+WIND+POWER+PROJECT%2C+CASSIA+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Burley, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 24, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ABRAHAM LINCOLN BIRTHPLACE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, LA RUE COUNTY, KENTUCKY.
AN  - 36344713; 11981
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan for the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site, La Rue County, Kentucky is proposed. First authorized as a national park in 1916 under the Secretary of War, the national historic site was redesignated by Congress on September 8, 1959. The last comprehensive management plan was completed in 1964 and, due to extensive changes in the surroundings and use of the site, revision of the management plan is required. When Lincoln was two years old, the Lincolns moved to the Knob Creek Farm, approximately 10 miles from the birthplace cabin. In 1998, Congress authorized the acquisition and addition of the land and cultural and natural resources of the Knob Creek Farm (Boyhood Home Unit) to the national historic site. Visitor use patterns have changed and area interests wish to bring new recreational activities to the national historic site. Four alternatives for management of the site over the next 15 to 20 years, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize the preservation and conservation of cultural and natural resources at the site; Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would enhance opportunities for visitors to interact with and appreciate all of the national historic site's resources, while preserving or adaptively reusing those cultural resources. The visitor center would be enhanced, with national Park Service (NPS) administrative functions moved to vacant NPS housing or the Nancy Lincoln Inn property if acquired. Vacant space would be used for additional interpretation. The visitor center parking lot would be moved toward the highway and enlarged. Keith Road would be removed to improve safety, bring the area closer to its historic appearance, and restore forest habitat. Other recreational and educational facilities and programs would be improved and/or expanded. If acquired, the Nancy Lincoln Inn would be restored to the earliest 1930s exterior appearance that the documentation would allow. The associated guest cabins would be evaluated for possible NPS use or removed. The modern house would be removed or converted to NPS administrative offices. The tavern at the Boyhood Home Unit would be restored to its 1930s exterior appearance and reused as a visitor contact station, sales and exhibits area, restroom site, offices, or staff quarters. Access to the Boyhood Home Unit would be redesigned for safety, and the parking area would be moved outside the historic district behind the tavern building. An interpretive garden would be planted with crop plants common at the time the Lincolns lived at the site. Fields at the Boyhood Home Unit would be reestablished to their historic size and configuration. An agricultural lease would be used to maintain the historic appearance and use of the fields. One trail would be repaired and a new trail would be provided. if feasible, 50 acres on the north side of the unit would be acquired to protect a rare hardwood glade and the associated historic/scenic views. Alternative D would focus on instilling a stewardship ethic through interpretation and resource education, including recreation and restoration of the historic scene. Capital costs for implementing the preferred alternative are estimated at $2.2 million. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised management plan would clearly define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved at the historic site; provide a framework for NPS managers to use when making decisions about how to best protect national historic site resources and opportunities and how to manage visitor use and facilities; and ensure that this foundation for decision-making has been developed in consultation with interested stakeholders and adopted by the NPS leadership. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with reconfiguring and/or renovating portions of the site would result in short-term, negligible impacts to soils and vegetation in the immediate area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060109, 218 pages, March 22, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Trails
KW  - Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site
KW  - Kentucky
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344713?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-03-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ABRAHAM+LINCOLN+BIRTHPLACE+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+LA+RUE+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.title=ABRAHAM+LINCOLN+BIRTHPLACE+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+LA+RUE+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 22, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST, BARAGA, GOGEBI, HOUGHTON, IRON, MARQUETTE, AND ONTONAGON COUNTIES, MICHIGAN.
AN  - 36340738; 12062
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the land and resource management plan for the Ottawa National Forest of Baraga, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Marquette, and Ontonagon counties, Michigan is proposed. The new plan would revise and replace the 1986 plan currently providing forest direction and provide direction for forest management for the next 10 to 15 years. The national forest encompasses approximately 1.0 million acres at the western end of Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Glacial geology characterizes most of the forest, providing variety in landform from hilly glacial moraine to outwash sand plains. Rock outcroppings and substantial hills and ranges from geological events in the deep past also contribute to the unique ecological and scenic features of the Ottawa. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to all-terrain vehicle management, hard wood management, aspen management, long-lived conifer management, and short-lived conifer management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3-Modified) would emphasize all-terrain vehicle (ATV) management, hardwood management, aspen management, conifer management, as well as addressing allowable timber sale quantity. ATV would be allowed access only on designated roads open to highway vehicle traffic and trails. The majority of designation would occur on those operational maintenance level 2 and 3 roads open to highway vehicles. Any road closed to highway vehicles would also be closed to ATV use unless designated as part of a route or trail. Vegetation management allocation goals would include 109,000 acres for aspen and paper birch, 52,000 areas for pine, 8,000 acres for jack pine, and 10,000 acres for balsam fir. Hardwood management would include even-aged management on 44,00 acres and uneven-aged management on 193,000 acres. The allowable sale quantities would be set at 90.1 million board-feet (MMBF) for the first decade and 134.15 MMBF for the second decade. Approximately 488,000 acres would be designated as suitable forest land. Old-growth stands would be designated within 164,000 acres. Special management measures would be taken to support Canada lynx habitat, and four management indicator species (American marten, ruffled grouse, cut leaf toothwort, an the mayfly/stonefly/caddis fly suite) would be designated. The plan would also refine the current fire management direction to allow for natural ignitions to burn and the use of prescribed fire, establishment of the Sturgeon River Gorge Research Natural Area, inclusion of standards and guidelines for riparian areas and dams, recommendation of three study areas for wilderness designation, and establishment of seven special interest areas to protect scenic, geologic, botanical, zoological, recreational, and/or historic values. Present net value of the preferred alternative is estimated at $2.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for a diversity of forested types and conditions that would provide variety in tree species composition, timber products, wildlife habitat, and overall species richness. In addition to contributing timber for local and regional use, plan implementation would provide significant employment, particularly in the timber industry, and otherwise boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Closure of some trails to motor vehicle use would hamper some recreational access within the interface area. Air quality along routes designed for motor vehicle use would continue to be degraded. Continued timber harvest and recreational use of the area and management for such uses would disturb wildlife degrade vegetation and other wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0514D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060190, Record of Decision--42 pages, Executive Summary--38 pages and maps, Final EIS--391 pages, Appendices--411 pages and maps, Land and Resource Management Plan--257 pages, Map Supplement, March 17, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Birds
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Insects
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Research
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Michigan
KW  - Ottawa National Forest
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36340738?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-03-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+OTTAWA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BARAGA%2C+GOGEBI%2C+HOUGHTON%2C+IRON%2C+MARQUETTE%2C+AND+ONTONAGON+COUNTIES%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+OTTAWA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BARAGA%2C+GOGEBI%2C+HOUGHTON%2C+IRON%2C+MARQUETTE%2C+AND+ONTONAGON+COUNTIES%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ironwood, Michigan; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 17, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PIT 14 COAL LEASE-BY-APPLICATION, SWEETWATER COUNTY, WYOMING (FEDERAL COAL LEASE APPLICATION WYW160394).
AN  - 16358140; 11958
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of a lease-by-application for the mining of federal coal reserves in Sweetwater County, Wyoming is proposed. The reserve tract, known as Pit 14, lies adjacent to the existing Black Butte Mine, which is located 28 miles southeast of Rock Springs. Under the proposed action, a competitive lease sale would be held for 1,399 acres of unleased federal coal and a lease would be issued allowing the extraction of previously leased federal coal reserves as well as private coal reserves within the 4,359-acre planning area. Under the proposed action, current estimates indicate that mining would result in an average annual coal production of 1.5 million to 3.0 million tons of product over a 20-year mining life cycle, resulting in the extraction of up to 34.6 million tons of in place coal reserves. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action Alternative, under which the application would be denied. Current mining operations would be permitted to continue, but future mining operations would be evaluated depending on the resource base. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Coal generated by the mine would increase the nation's potential for energy generation, particularly electrical energy generation, and decrease the country's dependence on foreign sources of energy. Mining and related activities would employ 171 workers. Overall federal and state revenues from mining would amount to $160 million to $300 million, increasing from $30 million to $75 million under the existing mining plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining and related activities would disturb 2,250 acres of vegetated land within the 4,359-acre lease area over a period of 20 years. Land disturbance would increase erosion and sedimentation and affect groundwater levels and quality, degrading sources of drinking water, as well as increase the potential for invasion by non-native plant species. Lease implementation would result in disturbance, destruction, or degradation of air quality, cultural resources, Native American spiritual sites, and habitat for wild horses and other wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. Area geological structures would be altered, other land uses eliminated or disrupted, public access restricted or denied, and visual aesthetics degraded. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq), and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.)
JF  - EPA number: 060086, 341 pages, March 14, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-06/005+1320
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Coal
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Geology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization
KW  - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16358140?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-03-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIT+14+COAL+LEASE-BY-APPLICATION%2C+SWEETWATER+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING+%28FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+WYW160394%29.&rft.title=PIT+14+COAL+LEASE-BY-APPLICATION%2C+SWEETWATER+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING+%28FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+WYW160394%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 14, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DILLON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BEAVERHEAD AND MADISON COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 16356783; 11942
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised resource management plan (RMP) for 901,226 acres of federal surface and 1.3 million acres of federal mineral estate in the Dillon Resource Area of Beaverhead and Madison counties of southwestern Montana is proposed. The current management plan, which was approved in 1979, must be updated to address changing resource protection and use requirements. Key RMP issues identified during scoping include those related to upland and riparian management, forest and woodland management, noxious weeds, sage grouse and west slope cutthroat trout conservation, commercial uses, proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern designations, wild and scenic River suitability findings, and travel management designations. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue the current management plan, are considered in this final EIS, which consists of a record of decision and the approved Dillon RMP. The preferred Alternative (Alternative B) would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, restoration, and enhancement of resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but these would be less restrictive than might be applied. Alternative B would accommodate a moderate level of production of food, fiber, minerals, and services through the use of public land. Resource values and fish and wildlife habitats would be restored and enhanced using a variety of tools. Certain geographic areas containing sensitive resources would received focused management. Resources addressed by all alternatives include air quality, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, geologic resources, paleontological resources, soils, special status species (animal, plant, and fish), forests and woodlands, invasive plants and noxious weeds, rangelands, riparian and wetlands, visual resources, water, and wild horses and burros. Resource uses would include those related to forest products, lands and reality, livestock grazing, minerals, recreation, renewable energy, transportation and facilities, travel management and off-road vehicle (OHV) use, and utility and communications corridors. The plan would also cover fire management and ecology, special area designations, and socioeconomic conditions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would provide federal administrative authorities with a comprehensive, up-to-date framework for managing lands in the planning area. The plan would sustain and, where appropriate, restore the health and diversity of forest, rangeland, aquatic, and riparian ecosystems; support a sustainable flow of benefits in consideration of the social and economic systems of southwest Montana; and provide diverse recreational and educational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Resource exploitation would continue to affect sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, unevaluated and undiscovered cultural resources associated with dispersed recreation, OHV use, vandalism, and other types of illicit activities. Vegetation treatments and other authorized activities , as well as unauthorized travel, could cause short-term displacement of wildlife and short-term increases in soil erosion and stream sedimentation. Decreases in the quantity and quality of forage could also result from treatments. Any facility developments, including recreation facilities, livestock water and other range improvements, and utility and road facilities could result in increased soil erosion. Changes in the level of recreational visitation and associated duration and patterns of use could result in increased conflicts between users and unanticipated changes in resource conditions. Large-scale, stand-replacing wild land fires expected to occur within the planning area over the life of the plan could quickly change the scenic quality of the landscape without regard to visual resource objectives. Scarring of the landscape could also result from unauthorized cross-country travel. 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 04-0402D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060071, Record of Decision and Approved Dillon Resource Management Plan--232 pages and maps, March 2, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-06/004
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Montana
KW  - Dillon Resource Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16356783?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DILLON+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BEAVERHEAD+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=DILLON+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BEAVERHEAD+AND+MADISON+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dillon, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FALLEN TIMBERS BATTLEFIELD AND FORT MIAMIS NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO.
AN  - 36339581; 11928
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of The general management plan for the Fallen Timbers Battlefield and Fort Miamis National Historic Site, Lucas County, Ohio is proposed. The battlefield and fort sites were established as an affiliated area of the National Park System of the Toledo Area in 1999. The park consists of three units, namely, the battlefield, the Fallen Timbers State Monument, and the fort. The Battle of Fallen Timbers played an important role in the history of the United States and the opening of the northwest frontier. The battle was the culminating event that demonstrated the tenacity to struggle for dominance in the Old Northwest Territory. The associated events resulted in the dispossession of American Indian tribes and a loss of colonial territory for the British military and settlers. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B, the preferred Alternative, would preserve resources, with an emphasis on protecting cultural resources and interpreting historic events associated with the sites. Visitor experiences would be geared toward learning about the sites. Most interpretation would take place at The edges of historic resources in order to ensure their preservation. Native vegetation at the battlefield site would be allowed to revert to species types more typical of those that existed in 1794. Alternative C would strike a balance between resource preservation and visitor experience. While historic resources would be protected, visitors would have access to more of the battlefield and the fort, encouraging them to become immersed in the interpretive and historical experience. Alternative D would establish an interpretive network of sites. Historic resources would be protected, and the historical importance of each unit would be presented through various interpretive media, with a small visitor center provided at each unit. Visitors would be encouraged to visit other important historic sites in the region. Under all action alternatives, all park units would be linked via walking/biking trails, a waterway connection on the Maumee River, and public transportation facilities. Cost of implementation of the preferred Alternative is estimated at $3.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred Alternative would preserve cultural resources and reestablish natural vegetative conditions. Visitor experience would be enhanced as a result of the recreation of the historical appearance of the battlefield, provision of in-depth interpretive programs, and establishment of links between the three units. The plan would prevent potentially major, adverse impacts to archaeological and historic resources at the battlefield and the fort. The involvement of local groups in park-related programs would foster a greater sense of stewardship, encourage more community involvement, and improve interpretive programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term impacts to soils, vegetation, and water quality would occur during construction of site facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 106-94. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0395D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060057, 286 pages, February 17, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 06-05
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Waterways
KW  - Fallen Timbers Battlefield
KW  - Fort Miamis National Historic Site
KW  - Ohio
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 106-164, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36339581?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FALLEN+TIMBERS+BATTLEFIELD+AND+FORT+MIAMIS+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+LUCAS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=FALLEN+TIMBERS+BATTLEFIELD+AND+FORT+MIAMIS+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+LUCAS+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of The Interior, National Park Service, Toledo, Ohio; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 17, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WEST SAN JOANQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT, LONG-TERM SERVICE CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR THE SAN LUIS UNIT OF THE WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, FRESNO, KINGS, AND MERCED COUNTRIES, CALIFORNIA, CITIES OF AVENAL, COALINGA, AND HURON, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2004.
AN  - 16367052; 11927
AB  - PURPOSE: The renewal of long-term service contract renewal for the San Luis Unit of the West San Joaquin Division of the Central Valley Project (CVP), Fresno, Kings, and Merced countries, California, and the cities of Avenal, Coalinga, and Huron. In October 1992, the President signed into law the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act, which included Title XXXIV of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). The CVPIA amended the previous authorizations of the CVP IA a reasonable balance among competing demands for use for the use of CVP water, including requirements of fish and wildlife and agricultural, municipal and industrial, and power contractors. Through the CVPIA, the Bureau of Reclamation is developing policies and programs to improvement environmental conditions that were affected by the operation and maintenance of physical facilities of the CVP. The CVPIA also includes tools to facilitate larger efforts in California to improve environmental conditions in the Central Valley and the San Francisco Bay-Delta system. Section 3404(c) of the CVPIA directs the Secretary of the Interior to renew existing CVP water service and repayment contracts following completion of a programmatic EIS and other needed documentation. The upper limit for long-term irrigation repayment and water service contracts will be 25 years. However, Section 3404(c) did not amend the provisions of Section 9(c) of the Reclamation Projects Act, providing for terms of up to 40 years. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of December 2004. This draft supplement to the draft EIS addresses a Contract Reduction Alternative, impacts if federal drainage is not provided, impacts of contractual with land retirement, impacts of increased in contract deliveries, drainage management related to the Drainage Feature Reevaluation Study, and contracts in the context of the CVPIA. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The renewed contracts and assured payment of the existing contracts would ensure a stead supply of clean water for municipal and industrial water uses and irrigation, while protecting the environment of the San Joaquin Valley and the San Francisco Bay Delta. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: No potentially significant impacts have been identified that could result from the renewal of San Luis Unit long-term water service and repayment of contracts. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575); Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 42 U.S.C. 7491 et seq.); Executive Orders 11988, 11990, 12898, 28989, 13077, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0427D, Volume 29, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060056, 72 pages, February 17, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 00-06
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Estuaries
KW  - Fisheries
KW  - Municipal Services
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - California
KW  - Central Valley Project
KW  - San Francisco Bay
KW  - San Joaquin River
KW  - Central Valley Project Act of 1992, Compliance
KW  - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards
KW  - Executive Order 11988, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 11990, Compliance
KW  - Executive Order 12898, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16367052?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT+WEST+SAN+JOANQUIN+DIVISION%2C+SAN+LUIS+UNIT%2C+LONG-TERM+SERVICE+CONTRACT+RENEWAL+FOR+THE+SAN+LUIS+UNIT+OF+THE+WEST+SAN+JOAQUIN+DIVISION+OF+THE+CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+AND+MERCED+COUNTRIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+CITIES+OF+AVENAL%2C+COALINGA%2C+AND+HURON%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2004.&rft.title=CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT+WEST+SAN+JOANQUIN+DIVISION%2C+SAN+LUIS+UNIT%2C+LONG-TERM+SERVICE+CONTRACT+RENEWAL+FOR+THE+SAN+LUIS+UNIT+OF+THE+WEST+SAN+JOAQUIN+DIVISION+OF+THE+CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+AND+MERCED+COUNTRIES%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+CITIES+OF+AVENAL%2C+COALINGA%2C+AND+HURON%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2004.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of The Interior, Bureau of Land Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NIOBRARA NATIONAL SCENIC RIVER, BROWN, CHERRY, KEYA PAHA, AND ROCK COUNTIES, NEBRASKA: GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 36343344; 12661
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Niobrara National Scenic River in Brown, Cherry, Keya, Paha, and Rock counties, Nebraska is proposed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would develop a vision for cooperative management of the scenic river wherein the National Park Service would provide stewardship through an array of federal, state, and local partnerships to achieve management outcomes inherent in the operation of a unit of the National Park System on a landscape that would remain largely privately owned. Alternative C would develop a vision of independent National Park Service management on a landscape that would, in time, be federally owned within the limits permitted by federal legislation governing the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Three boundary alternatives are considered. Boundary Alternative 1, which is the interim boundary set by the federal legislation, would provide for an inflexible 0.25-mile-wide corridor extending from the high water mark on each side of the river and encompassing approximately 24.320 acres of land. Boundary Alternative 2 would provide for the protection of the Niobrara's scenic and paleontological resources, while incorporating, but not invariably favoring, its inherent recreational, geologic, and fish and wildlife values; the boundary would encompass 24,472 acres. Boundary Alternative 3, which constitutes the preferred alternative, was set out to protect, as equitably as possible, the Scenic River's outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, and paleontological values; this boundary would encompass 23,074 acres. Annual operating costs under Alternatives A are estimated at $100,000. Land acquisition, development costs, and annual operating costs under Alternative B are estimated at $5.5 million, $4.75 million to $6.75 million and $400,000, respectively. Land acquisition, development costs, and annual operating costs under Alternative C are estimated at $20 million, $175,000 to $350,000, and $245,000, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred management and boundary alternatives would protect, to the greatest geographic extent and a reasonable and acceptable regulatory extent, the various pristine resources within the protection corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of facilities and increased visitation would result in damage, due to intentional disturbance and vandalism and theft, affecting the abovementioned protected resources. In addition, such activities could result in the disturbance of soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Visual intrusions would also result from the construction of facilities and additional visitor use. Development opportunities would be foregone in the expanded corridor under the preferred regulatory and boundary alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0594D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 070062, 265 pages and maps, February 16, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: FES 07-04
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Nebraska
KW  - Niobrara National Scenic River
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343344?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-02-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NIOBRARA+NATIONAL+SCENIC+RIVER%2C+BROWN%2C+CHERRY%2C+KEYA+PAHA%2C+AND+ROCK+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA%3A+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=NIOBRARA+NATIONAL+SCENIC+RIVER%2C+BROWN%2C+CHERRY%2C+KEYA+PAHA%2C+AND+ROCK+COUNTIES%2C+NEBRASKA%3A+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, O'Neill, Nebraska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2007-11-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 16, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SCOTTS VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRUST AND GAMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CITIES OF RICHMOND AND SAN PABLO AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 16367007; 11917
AB  - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 29.87 acres of Native American land held by the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians into federal trust administration in unincorporated Contra Costa County is proposed to provide for the development of a gaming center (casino) in the vicinity of the cities of Richmond and San Pablo. Four commercial development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred casino Alternative (Alternative A) would result in the development of a 225,00-square-foot casino complex. Project components would include a porte-cochere, main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, and administrative space. Approximately 79,320 square feet of this building space would be devoted to the main gaming hall, while the balance of the facility would include administrative space, small retail shops, food and beverage facilities, and a small gift and art shop. Approximately 3,549 parking spaces would be provided for the casino users, including spaces within a four-level parking structure. The casino would be built on land within an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. Regional access to the proposed site would be provided via Interstate 80 (I-80) and I-580. Richmond Parkway, Parr Boulevard, and Goodrick Road would provide local access to the casino. Alternatives B, C, and D, respectively, would provide a reduced casino development, a reduced casino development with additional retail space, and a development providing retail space only. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The trust transfer and subsequent casino development would provide for land uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of the Scotts Valley Pomo Indian Tribe and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue that would take advantage of the tribe's restored trust land base. Revenues generated from the development would be used to support social and educational programs for the elderly, the poor, and younger tribal members, as well as support the development of other services over time that would serve tribal members and relocated Native Americans in the Bay area. The development the highest and best use of the restored trust land base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb soils and destroy vegetation and exacerbate erosion and sedimentation of receiving flows. Increases in impermeable surface would increase runoff, including runoff of contaminants, further degrading surface water quality. Soil conditions could affect the ground stability of the area, and the development would lie within a seismically active zone. Cultural resource sites could be disturbed, though preliminary investigations have found none. user traffic added to the study area roadway system would contribute to the unacceptable operating conditions of several roadway segments and intersections. LEGAL MANDATES: California Rancheria Termination Act of 1958, as amended (P.L. 88-419) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060046, 621 pages and maps, February 10, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Urban and Social Programs
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Earthquakes
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Traffic Analyses
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - California
KW  - California Rancheria Termination Act of 1958, as amended, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16367007?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SCOTTS+VALLEY+BAND+OF+POMO+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+GAMING+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CITIES+OF+RICHMOND+AND+SAN+PABLO+AND+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SCOTTS+VALLEY+BAND+OF+POMO+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+GAMING+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CITIES+OF+RICHMOND+AND+SAN+PABLO+AND+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, ELKMONT HISTORIC DISTRICT, GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, TENNESSEE.
AN  - 36345750; 11913
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the 1982 general management plan for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park of North Carolina and Tennessee is proposed to alter management of the Elkmont Historic District in the Tennessee section of the park. The historic district, which is located in Sevier County, six miles from park headquarters and eight miles from Gatlinburg, Tennessee, has European-American historical routes that extend back to the 1830s, when a subsistence agricultural settlement was created along Jakes Creek, a tributary of the Little River. By the 1880s, the first small-scale logging operations were underway in the area but, due to the remoteness of the area and the relatively primitive nature of timbering operations there, commercial opportunities were limited. Large-scale industrial logging began in the early 1900s, when the Little River Lumber Company was established in Townsend, Tennessee. By 1908, the Little River Railroad Company had constructed a rail line along the Little River from Townsend to the current site of Elkmont. the community of Elkmont soon developed between 1908 and 1925 in the typical "boom" fashion of many towns and communities associated with resource extraction common during that era. In 1910 and 1912, two private resort communities were established on the outskirts of Elkmont. Between 1910 and 1940, a social clubhouse, a hotel and annex, and several dozen individual vacation cabins were constructed as part of these two, separate social clubs. In 1926, legislation for the creation of a national park in the Smoky Mountains was passed by Congress and, in 1934, the park was officially established. Recently, private leases on buildings in the Elkmont area expired and the vacated buildings were left empty. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current management direction, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would retain the Appalachian Clubhouse and 16 historic buildings in the area immediately adjacent to the clubhouse, known as Daisy Town. Fifteen of these 16 buildings are listed as contributing elements to the character of the district. The Daisy Town area represents the first portion of the resort community to be developed. Additionally, one cabin in the area, known as Society Hill, would be retained due to its association with David C. Chapman, an important figure in park movement during the 1920s and 1930s. In all areas where buildings were removed, native plant communities and natural systems would be restored. Chimneys and other cultural landscape features would remain unless retention of these features would present a safety hazard. The Appalachian Clubhouse would be rehabilitated on the interior for day use opportunities under special use permit. The restored cabin would serve as a museum community. Parking spaces for 106 vehicles would be provided to accommodate day users and to provide parking for trail users leaving from Elkmont. Sensitive plant communities, such as montane alluvial forest species, would be actively restored. Cost of implementing Alternative C is estimated at $5.7 million in 2007 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred Alternative would strike a balance between natural and cultural resources while permitting traditional uses and additional new uses to occur. Some of the districts most important resources would be preserved, including the original portion of the resort community, the Chapman cabin, and the dominant area of montane alluvial forest currently occupied by buildings. Removal of buildings and restoration of pristine and, globally imperiled, montane alluvial forest would reinstate native vegetation to the district. Expected increases in visitation would add to National Park Service revenues and boost the local commercial economy, NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While many components of the cultural landscape would remain, including the clubhouse and 15 contributing buildings, nearly two-thirds of the contributing buildings in the district would be removed. Additional sewage generated by the day use facility at the clubhouse would be added to the existing campground effluent, but this increase would have a negligible environmental impact. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060042, Draft EIS--372 pages and maps, Appendices--124 pages, February 3, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 06-03
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Timber
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Elkmont Historic District
KW  - Great Smoky National Park
KW  - North Carolina
KW  - Tennessee
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Districts
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36345750?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+ELKMONT+HISTORIC+DISTRICT%2C+GREAT+SMOKY+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+ELKMONT+HISTORIC+DISTRICT%2C+GREAT+SMOKY+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gatlinburg, Tennessee; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 3, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ROCK CREEK INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PROJECT, YAMPA RANGER DISTRICT, MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL FOREST, ROUTT AND GRAND COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - ROCK CREEK INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PROJECT, YAMPA RANGER DISTRICT, MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL FOREST, ROUTT AND GRAND COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 756824477; 11914-060043_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implement of a integrated pest management program is proposed to address extensive beetle epidemics and the subsequent potential for large, high intensity fires and excessive water flows within the Gore Pass area of The Rock Creek watershed in the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, the Thunder Basin National Grassland, and the Bureau of Land Management's Glenwood Springs Resource Area. The area lies in Routt and Grand counties, Colorado. Prolonged drought, unusually high seasonal temperatures, and extensive areas of susceptible lodge pole stands have created an ideal situation for rapid growth of mountain pine beetle (MPB). epidemics around Gore Pass, between Kremmling and Yampa. These epidemics did not become apparent until July 2003. A Rock Creek focused assessment was completed in 2004 that identified resource values at risk due to extensive MPB epidemics and the potential for large, high intensity fires and excessive water flows within the Gore Pass area. These resource values include private property, water quality, Lagunita Lake dam, irrigation ditches, springs, the Wild and Scenic River corridor, scenery along Gore Pass Highway, developed and dispersed recreation sites, trails, administrative sites, power lines, transportation systems, wildlife and plant habitats, wetlands, rangeland, heritage sites, and timber. Increases in noxious weeds, sedimentation, and other hydrologic disturbances are likely without strategic management of the areas. The proposed action would institute a combination of preventive, protective, suppressive, and salvage actions designed to reduce the impacts of the beetle epidemic as well as the risk of wildfire and excessive water flows. These treatments would include tree removal (primarily involving commercial timber harvest), burning or peeling infested trees, beetle redirection using pheromones, spraying trees with insecticides, and road construction, closure, decommissioning, relocation, reconstruction, and repair. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime. The estimated present net values of the proposed action and the No Action Alternative are estimated to result in losses of $6.2 million and $2.1 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would reduce the susceptibility of lodge pole pine stands to MPB activity; actively suppress ongoing MPB epidemics to limit mature tree mortality; salvage and reforest areas quickly after MPB epidemics; relocation and/or decommission segments of the road system that are likely to cause adverse impacts to stream networks; reduce dangerous fuel accumulations associated with beetle killed trees; create defensible fire zones around the Lynx and Gore Pass areas; and reduce anticipated mature tree mortality in threatened, endangered, and sensitive wildlife species habitats. The Western area Power Association, a federal agency, would be spared the loss of power and high costs for line repair, preventing a loss of $257,296. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Individual clustered lady's slipper orchid plants and small populations of this federally protected species could be affected; however, important sites would be protected under the proposed action. The number of acres where tree cover is reduced by less than 50 percent would increase, but the number of acres of tree cover with greater than a 50 percent loss of trees would be lower. Road less areas could incur minor changes in character due to limited MPB suppression actions, but no such areas would be removed from consideration for wilderness designation. LEGAL MANDATES: Healthy Forest Restoration Act (P.L. 108-148) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0551D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060043, 521 pages, February 2, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 3
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Forests
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Roads
KW  - Streams
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Medicine Bow National Forest
KW  - Routt National Forest
KW  - Healthy Forest Restoration Act, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824477?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-02-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROCK+CREEK+INTEGRATED+MANAGEMENT+PROJECT%2C+YAMPA+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MEDICINE+BOW-ROUTT+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ROUTT+AND+GRAND+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=ROCK+CREEK+INTEGRATED+MANAGEMENT+PROJECT%2C+YAMPA+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MEDICINE+BOW-ROUTT+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ROUTT+AND+GRAND+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Yampa, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 2, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ROCK CREEK INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PROJECT, YAMPA RANGER DISTRICT, MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL FOREST, ROUTT AND GRAND COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - ROCK CREEK INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PROJECT, YAMPA RANGER DISTRICT, MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL FOREST, ROUTT AND GRAND COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 756824453; 11914-060043_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implement of a integrated pest management program is proposed to address extensive beetle epidemics and the subsequent potential for large, high intensity fires and excessive water flows within the Gore Pass area of The Rock Creek watershed in the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, the Thunder Basin National Grassland, and the Bureau of Land Management's Glenwood Springs Resource Area. The area lies in Routt and Grand counties, Colorado. Prolonged drought, unusually high seasonal temperatures, and extensive areas of susceptible lodge pole stands have created an ideal situation for rapid growth of mountain pine beetle (MPB). epidemics around Gore Pass, between Kremmling and Yampa. These epidemics did not become apparent until July 2003. A Rock Creek focused assessment was completed in 2004 that identified resource values at risk due to extensive MPB epidemics and the potential for large, high intensity fires and excessive water flows within the Gore Pass area. These resource values include private property, water quality, Lagunita Lake dam, irrigation ditches, springs, the Wild and Scenic River corridor, scenery along Gore Pass Highway, developed and dispersed recreation sites, trails, administrative sites, power lines, transportation systems, wildlife and plant habitats, wetlands, rangeland, heritage sites, and timber. Increases in noxious weeds, sedimentation, and other hydrologic disturbances are likely without strategic management of the areas. The proposed action would institute a combination of preventive, protective, suppressive, and salvage actions designed to reduce the impacts of the beetle epidemic as well as the risk of wildfire and excessive water flows. These treatments would include tree removal (primarily involving commercial timber harvest), burning or peeling infested trees, beetle redirection using pheromones, spraying trees with insecticides, and road construction, closure, decommissioning, relocation, reconstruction, and repair. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime. The estimated present net values of the proposed action and the No Action Alternative are estimated to result in losses of $6.2 million and $2.1 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would reduce the susceptibility of lodge pole pine stands to MPB activity; actively suppress ongoing MPB epidemics to limit mature tree mortality; salvage and reforest areas quickly after MPB epidemics; relocation and/or decommission segments of the road system that are likely to cause adverse impacts to stream networks; reduce dangerous fuel accumulations associated with beetle killed trees; create defensible fire zones around the Lynx and Gore Pass areas; and reduce anticipated mature tree mortality in threatened, endangered, and sensitive wildlife species habitats. The Western area Power Association, a federal agency, would be spared the loss of power and high costs for line repair, preventing a loss of $257,296. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Individual clustered lady's slipper orchid plants and small populations of this federally protected species could be affected; however, important sites would be protected under the proposed action. The number of acres where tree cover is reduced by less than 50 percent would increase, but the number of acres of tree cover with greater than a 50 percent loss of trees would be lower. Road less areas could incur minor changes in character due to limited MPB suppression actions, but no such areas would be removed from consideration for wilderness designation. LEGAL MANDATES: Healthy Forest Restoration Act (P.L. 108-148) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0551D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060043, 521 pages, February 2, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Forests
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Roads
KW  - Streams
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Medicine Bow National Forest
KW  - Routt National Forest
KW  - Healthy Forest Restoration Act, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824453?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-02-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROCK+CREEK+INTEGRATED+MANAGEMENT+PROJECT%2C+YAMPA+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MEDICINE+BOW-ROUTT+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ROUTT+AND+GRAND+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=ROCK+CREEK+INTEGRATED+MANAGEMENT+PROJECT%2C+YAMPA+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MEDICINE+BOW-ROUTT+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ROUTT+AND+GRAND+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Yampa, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 2, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ROCK CREEK INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PROJECT, YAMPA RANGER DISTRICT, MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL FOREST, ROUTT AND GRAND COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - ROCK CREEK INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PROJECT, YAMPA RANGER DISTRICT, MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL FOREST, ROUTT AND GRAND COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 756824444; 11914-060043_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implement of a integrated pest management program is proposed to address extensive beetle epidemics and the subsequent potential for large, high intensity fires and excessive water flows within the Gore Pass area of The Rock Creek watershed in the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, the Thunder Basin National Grassland, and the Bureau of Land Management's Glenwood Springs Resource Area. The area lies in Routt and Grand counties, Colorado. Prolonged drought, unusually high seasonal temperatures, and extensive areas of susceptible lodge pole stands have created an ideal situation for rapid growth of mountain pine beetle (MPB). epidemics around Gore Pass, between Kremmling and Yampa. These epidemics did not become apparent until July 2003. A Rock Creek focused assessment was completed in 2004 that identified resource values at risk due to extensive MPB epidemics and the potential for large, high intensity fires and excessive water flows within the Gore Pass area. These resource values include private property, water quality, Lagunita Lake dam, irrigation ditches, springs, the Wild and Scenic River corridor, scenery along Gore Pass Highway, developed and dispersed recreation sites, trails, administrative sites, power lines, transportation systems, wildlife and plant habitats, wetlands, rangeland, heritage sites, and timber. Increases in noxious weeds, sedimentation, and other hydrologic disturbances are likely without strategic management of the areas. The proposed action would institute a combination of preventive, protective, suppressive, and salvage actions designed to reduce the impacts of the beetle epidemic as well as the risk of wildfire and excessive water flows. These treatments would include tree removal (primarily involving commercial timber harvest), burning or peeling infested trees, beetle redirection using pheromones, spraying trees with insecticides, and road construction, closure, decommissioning, relocation, reconstruction, and repair. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime. The estimated present net values of the proposed action and the No Action Alternative are estimated to result in losses of $6.2 million and $2.1 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would reduce the susceptibility of lodge pole pine stands to MPB activity; actively suppress ongoing MPB epidemics to limit mature tree mortality; salvage and reforest areas quickly after MPB epidemics; relocation and/or decommission segments of the road system that are likely to cause adverse impacts to stream networks; reduce dangerous fuel accumulations associated with beetle killed trees; create defensible fire zones around the Lynx and Gore Pass areas; and reduce anticipated mature tree mortality in threatened, endangered, and sensitive wildlife species habitats. The Western area Power Association, a federal agency, would be spared the loss of power and high costs for line repair, preventing a loss of $257,296. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Individual clustered lady's slipper orchid plants and small populations of this federally protected species could be affected; however, important sites would be protected under the proposed action. The number of acres where tree cover is reduced by less than 50 percent would increase, but the number of acres of tree cover with greater than a 50 percent loss of trees would be lower. Road less areas could incur minor changes in character due to limited MPB suppression actions, but no such areas would be removed from consideration for wilderness designation. LEGAL MANDATES: Healthy Forest Restoration Act (P.L. 108-148) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0551D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060043, 521 pages, February 2, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Forests
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Roads
KW  - Streams
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Medicine Bow National Forest
KW  - Routt National Forest
KW  - Healthy Forest Restoration Act, Project Authorization
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824444?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-02-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROCK+CREEK+INTEGRATED+MANAGEMENT+PROJECT%2C+YAMPA+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MEDICINE+BOW-ROUTT+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ROUTT+AND+GRAND+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=ROCK+CREEK+INTEGRATED+MANAGEMENT+PROJECT%2C+YAMPA+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MEDICINE+BOW-ROUTT+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ROUTT+AND+GRAND+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Yampa, Colorado; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 2, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH STEENS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT, STEENS MOUNTAIN, SOUTHEASTERN OREGON.
AN  - 36342259; 11907
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a landscape-level ecosystem restoration project within the 336,000-acre North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project Area of the Andrews Resource Area is proposed. The project plan is designed to reduce hazardous fuels created by an unnatural increase in western juniper and to restore appropriate wildfire regimes, native levels of western juniper trees, and appropriate land uses. Five alternatives, including a No Treatment Alternative and an alternative that would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The Partial Landscape Alternative would provide for active fuels reduction and juniper management on private and public lands outside the wilderness areas, wilderness study areas (WSAs), and wild and scenic river (WSR) corridors. Management of naturally fires would still occur in designated subareas of the study area. Annual treatments would encompass 10,000 acres. The Limited Landscape Alternative would incorporate many of the features of the Partial Landscape Alternative. Management of naturally occurring fires would occur in wilderness areas, WSAs, and WSR corridors under this Alternative and would include the use of prescribed fire for western juniper management and fuels reduction and restoration of wildfire regimes. Annual treatments would encompass 15,000 acres. The Full Landscape Alternative would incorporate many of the features of the Partial Landscape and Limited Landscape alternatives. The Full Landscape Alternative would incorporate would include active, landscape-level western juniper management and fuels reduction on private and public land, including wilderness, WSAs, and WSR corridors. Management of naturally occurring fires would occur in designated areas, and management could include prescribed fire, nonmotorized hand tools and nonmechanized transportation for western juniper management and fuels reduction. Additional treatment methods, including the use of other tools following publication of a minimum requirement decision guide, could be considered after a project review occurring on a three- to five-year basis. Annual treatments would encompass 20,000 acres. All of the three alternatives proposing new management regimes are preferable to both the other alternatives, though no single preferred Alternative has been identified. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reintroduction of the historic fire regime and restoration of a more natural ecosystem would implement provisions for the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 and would conform with the recently completed Resource Management Plan for the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Fuels reduction would reduce the risk of stand destroying wild land fire in the area. The project would restore native habitats in aspen, sagebrush-grassland, old-growth juniper, mountain mahogany, and riparian plant communities, while increasing forage for wild and domestic herbivores. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Only 25 to 65 percent of the upland landscape would be treated under any of the preferable alternatives, with only three to six percent of the landscape being treated in any one implementation season. Under the Limited Treatment and Full treatment alternatives, prescribed fire impacts could affect designated wilderness, WSAs, and WSR corridors. Mechanical treatments would damage vegetation and disturb soils, resulting in increased runoff and sedimentation of receiving surface waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000.
JF  - EPA number: 060036, 191 pages; CD-ROM, January 31, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/EA-06/011+1792
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Fires
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342259?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+STEENS+MOUNTAIN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+STEENS+MOUNTAIN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, West Hines, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 31, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GREATER DEADMAN BENCH OIL AND GAS PRODUCING REGION, QUESTAR EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION COMPANY PROPOSAL, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 16354489; 11909
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of oil and gas resources within the 98,785-acre Greater Deadman Bench Oil and Gas Producing Region (GDBR) area of Uintah County, Utah is proposed by the Questar Exploration and Production Company (QEP). The GDBR, which lies within the Brook Cliffs Resource Area 15 miles south of Vernal in townships T6S to T8s, R21E to R25E. A portion of the GDBR lies within the Diamond Mountain Resource Area. The GDBR currently includes 278 existing oil and water-injection wells, 300 gas wells, and 57 miles of primary road and 314 miles of secondary road. QEP holds valid federal, state, and private oil and gas leases in the GDBR. encompassing 79 percent of the leases in the area. The proposed action would include the development of 1,010 natural gas wells to be drilled into multiple formations, 219 oil/water-injection wells to be drilled into the Green River formation, 169 miles of access road, 193 miles of pipeline, 41 miles of oil flow lines, 15 compressor stations, and 22 central tank facilities. Each well pad would be a level 300 feet by 350 feet occupying approximately 2.41 acres. Drilling and completion operations would take from four to 90 days, depending on the depth of drilling, expected to range from 2,000 to 16,000 feet. Following drilling and initial completion operations, a portion of each pad, plus the reserve pit, would be reclaimed and returned to natural conditions. The average reclaimed well pad would displace 1.65 acres and the average 1,000-foot road would displace 0.69 acres for a total of 2.34 acres per well development. In some cases, a "twin" well would be drilled on a single pad to different formations or directional drilling would be used to access 20-acre spacing formations. As a result only 891 new pads and associated 1,000-foot access roads would be developed. Construction would begin after the issuance of a record of decision, approval of individual drilling permits, and approval of rights-of-way grants. Construction would continue for 10 years and production would be expected to continue for 40 years. The location of the wells and associated ancillary facilities proposed would represent a maximum level of development within the GBDR. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would involve denial of development of federal leases, but allow the development of federal leases that have been approved under the application for permit to drill process. Under either Alternative, development of state and private leases as well as the associated roads and pipelines would continue within federally administered lands to provide for access to state and private leases. POSITIVE IMPACTS: New lease development would result in a project life production of 615.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas and 9.52 million barrels of crude oil as compared to 106.8 billion cubic feet of gas and 1.44 million barrels of oil under current lease development. Leasing activities would employ local and regional workers throughout the lease development and production periods; 330 workers would be employed during the 10-year development period, resulting in an annual payroll of $10.7 million. Royalties to the state would amount to $140.1 million over the 40-year life of the project, while the county would receive $26.2 million. Severance tax to the Utah general fund would amount to $127 million over the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full lease development would result in the disturbance of 4,561 acres of soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including winter range for mule deer and raptor guideline buffers. Sediment loading to the White and Green rivers would not exceed 2,375 tons per year, an increase of less than 0.03 percent. A total of 426 well pads would be placed in area characterized by highly erodible soils, and 17 wells could be located within habitat for milk-vetch, prairie dog, ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, sage grouse, all of which are federally protected species. Oil spills would present a slight risk of groundwater contamination. Based on past research, it has been determined that 154 to 462 cultural resource sites could occur in the GDBR, 40 percent of which could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and seven to s2 new sites could be uncovered during earth-moving activities. Fossil-bearing formations could lie within the GDBR. Livestock forage would continue to be lost due to lease developments; 10 allotments would lose a total of 347 animal unit months of forage. Dust generated during construction and particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide emissions during production operations would be significant but would not exceed federal ambient air quality standards. Lease development structures and roads would mar visual aesthetics and other recreational values in the area, and recreationists would be exposed to noise from construction and operations activities. 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), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) .
JF  - EPA number: 060038, 351 pages, January 31, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-080-2003-0369V
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Brook Cliffs Resource Area
KW  - Diamond Mountain Resource Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16354489?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+DEADMAN+BENCH+OIL+AND+GAS+PRODUCING+REGION%2C+QUESTAR+EXPLORATION+AND+PRODUCTION+COMPANY+PROPOSAL%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GREATER+DEADMAN+BENCH+OIL+AND+GAS+PRODUCING+REGION%2C+QUESTAR+EXPLORATION+AND+PRODUCTION+COMPANY+PROPOSAL%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 31, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SCHOODIC DISTRICT, ACADIA NATIONAL PARK, MAINE.
AN  - 36345009; 11902
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of the general management plan for the Acadia National Park of Maine to alter management direction for the park's Schoodic District is proposed. The park and the Schoodic District encompass 35,500 acres and 2,366 acres, respectively, in the Mains's East Coastal Region, a 20-mile-wide ban extending from Mount Desert Island to Canada. The management options would be in place for the next 15 to 20 years. Between 1935 and 2002, the Schoodic peninsula was home to a Navy base located on 100 acres at Schoodic Point on the far southern tip of the peninsula. In 2002, the base property was transferred from the Navy to the jurisdiction of Acadia National Park. The current general management plan does not address the transfer of the Navy base at Schoodic Point to the National Park Service, requiring that the plan be amended to accommodate this additional area. Acadia's general management plan states that the Schoodic District would be managed to retain opportunities for low-density recreation, the then current (1992) use levels and parking lot capacities, and the existing natural and solitude values. In addition, the plan states that the district would not be actively promoted or expanded. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with resource management, visitor use and interpretation, cooperative efforts/partnerships, and operational efficiencies. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the draft EIS. All alternatives would incorporate the revision of the management zoning designated to conserve and protect natural and cultural resources within the Schoodic District, while allowing for visitor experience of such resources. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would establish a Schoodic Education and Research Center at the former naval base. The center would facilitate scientific inquiry and learning through partnerships among various organizations. Approximately 190 program participants could be housed overnight in dorms and apartments. Approximately 31,500 new annual program participants would be expected at the former Navy base. This historic Rockefeller Building and powerhouse, along with the commissary and medical clinic, would be preserved and the interiors rehabilitated for expanded program use. Other historic sites would be rehabilitated as appropriate. Costs for initial construction of facilities and annual operations and maintenance were estimated at $11.5 million and $2.4 million, respectively. This abbreviated final EIS includes a brief summary of the proposal, errata with respect to the draft EIS, comments on the draft, and responses to those comments as appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred plan would define direction for the management of the entire district, including the former naval base property. Compared with the other two alternatives, the proposed action anticipates the highest number of visitors and staff with respect to use of the district as well as significantly increased opportunities for education and research. Removal of unused buildings of no historical significance could result in the restoration of 16 acres of disturbed lands to native plant communities. Increased employment related to the new management regime would result in substantial socioeconomic benefits for the local community. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: increased visitation would result in greater demand for water, power, and sewage services and in the generation of additional solid and liquid wastes. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0177D, Volume 29, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 060031, 48 pages, January 25, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Buildings
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Demolition
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Islands
KW  - Military Facilities (Navy)
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Research Facilities
KW  - Shores
KW  - Structural Rehabilitation
KW  - Acadia National Park
KW  - Maine
KW  - Schoodic Point
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36345009?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SCHOODIC+DISTRICT%2C+ACADIA+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+MAINE.&rft.title=SCHOODIC+DISTRICT%2C+ACADIA+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+MAINE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bar Harbor, Maine; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 25, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN WATER OPERATIONS REVIEW, COLORADO AND NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 16355620; 11894
AB  - PURPOSE: The adoption of an integrated plan for water operations in the upper Rio Grande basin in Colorado and New Mexico is proposed. The basin encompasses the Rio Grande drainage from its headwaters in Colorado through New Mexico to just above Fort Quitman, Texas. Several distinct federal an state agencies, with differing missions and methods, are responsible for regulating activities in the basin. Several inter- and intra-state agreements mandate the delivery of certain volumes of water between federal, state, local, and tribal entities. The portion of the basin designated as the upper Rio Grande is subject to the Rio Grande Compact of 1938. The climate of the region is variable such that several years of above-average precipitation can be followed by several years of drought. Thus, the volume of available water to comply with agreements from year to year is similarly variable. As a result, any water management plan for the area needs to anticipate and proactively address wide-ranging hydrologic conditions. Ten water operations facilities in the basin can be manipulated individually or in concert to address various situations. The integrated plan proposed here would provide a means of integrating the sometimes disparate missions and activities of the agencies allocating and administering the basin's water resources. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each alternative addresses actions at nine basin water operations facilities, including six operated by the Bureau of Reclamation and three operated by the Army Corps of Engineers. These facilities include the Closed Basin Project, Platoto Dam, Heron Dam, El Vado Dam, Abiquin Dam, Cochiti Dam, Jemez Canyon Dam, Low-Flow Conveyance Channel to Elephant Butte Reservoir, and Elephant Butte Dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An integrated plan would provide for storage and delivery of water for agricultural, domestic, municipal and industrial, and environmental uses, assist authorities in meeting downstream water delivery obligations mandated by the Rio Grande Compact, provide for flood protection and sediment control, ad comply with existing laws, contractual obligations, and international treaty requirements vis-a-vis Mexico. Systems operation flexibility would be enhanced significantly, improving water deliveries for agricultural, recreational, and hydropower uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plan execution would result in slight to moderate decreases in reservoir and riparian resources, slight to moderate impacts on threatened and endangered species habitat. Impacts could disproportionately affect local Native American populations. The primary impacts related to water quality would consist of decreased dissolved oxygen levels in Elephant Butte and Caballo reservoirs. Excessive flood flows allowed in the San Acacia Section could damage culturally relevant archaeological sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) and Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat, 1107).
JF  - EPA number: 060023, Draft EIS--286 pages and maps; Map Attachment, January 19, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Colorado
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Rio Grande
KW  - Reclamation Project Act of 1939, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16355620?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+RIO+GRANDE+BASIN+WATER+OPERATIONS+REVIEW%2C+COLORADO+AND+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=UPPER+RIO+GRANDE+BASIN+WATER+OPERATIONS+REVIEW%2C+COLORADO+AND+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque, New Mexico; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 19, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - QUITCHUPAH CREEK ROAD, RICHFIELD RANGER DISTRICT, FISHLAKE NATIONAL FOREST, SEVIER COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 16353508; 11892
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way to the Sevier County Special Services District (SSD) for the construction of the Quitchupah Creek Road, a public road to be utilized primarily as a coal hauling route for the Southern Utah Fuel Company Mine (SUFCO), in the Fishlake National Forest, Sevier County, Utah is proposed. SUFCO would be a toll user of the facility, using it to haul coal to Hunter Power Plant and Savage Loadout at Wellington, Utah. The road would also be used for safe conduct of traffic and rescue units in the event of a mine emergency. the road would also provide public access from State Route 10 to the Accord Lakes Road. After coal mining and hauling ceased, the road would be maintained by the SSD for public use as a rural collector road within the state collector road system. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and three route variations, one involving design features to accommodate livestock and wildlife. The preferred alternative would involve construction of 11.2 miles of road within Water Hollow, a large northeast-southwest trending drainage that cuts through Old Woman Plateau. The alignment would follow the existing Quitchupah Creek Road for two miles at the new road's western end. At the eastern end of this section, the facility would cross Quitchupah Creek and turn to the south of this drainage to Water Hollow. the facility would then continue eastward to the Water Hollow Benches, where it would turn southward to Saleratus Benches. From Saleratus Benches, the alignment would turn northward and eastward to connect with State Route 10. The finished road would consist of a 28-foot-wide paved surface within an operational rights-of-way of 66 feet. The roadway would require 44 culvert crossings and five bridge crossings, and big game crossings would be provided as necessary. Pullouts for parking off the road shoulder would be provided. The construction corridor would vary from 50 to 60 feet on the relatively flat ground within the eastern segment to an average of 100 feet for the remainder of the corridor. The road would have a design speed of 40 miles per hour. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would allow for the efficient movement of coal to the power plant and the effective movement of emergency services in the event of a mine accident. Round-trip transport distance to and from mining activities would be reduced by 46.7 miles. In addition, the facility would enhance public access in a rural area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The total disturbed area would amount to 146.3 acres acres. Reclamation activities could reduce this area. Traffic-generated noise would increase in Water Hollow. The presence of erodible soils and soils unsuitable for roadbed could impact the integrity of the roadbed and contribute sediment and salts to the creek. Wetlands and other riparian areas associated with Water Hollow could be filled during construction. The road would lie within habitat for four federally protected plant species and the federally protected southwest willow flycatcher. Visual aesthetics within the remote canyon would be altered significantly by the presence of the highway, which would also present an impediment to all-terrain vehicle use. Historic and prehistoric sites could be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0055D, Volume 26, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 060021, 507 pages and maps, January 19, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Forests
KW  - Highways
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Noise
KW  - Parking
KW  - Roads
KW  - Salinity
KW  - Soils
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Fishlake National Forest
KW  - Utah
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/16353508?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=QUITCHUPAH+CREEK+ROAD%2C+RICHFIELD+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+FISHLAKE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SEVIER+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=QUITCHUPAH+CREEK+ROAD%2C+RICHFIELD+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+FISHLAKE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SEVIER+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Richfield, Utah; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 19, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DAYTON AVIATION HERITAGE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, DAYTON, OHIO. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - DAYTON AVIATION HERITAGE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, DAYTON, OHIO.
AN  - 36377775; 11883-060014_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park in Dayton, Ohio is proposed. The park, which is currently managed under a plan established in 1997 when the park had been in existence for only five years, has changed considerably since its inception due to the development of facilities, infrastructure, and site access. In addition, the terrorists attacks of September 2001 resulted in heightened security issues, particularly with respect to the operation of the Huffman Prairie Flying Field Unit. The legislated partners of the park include the National park Service, U.S. Air Force, Aviation Trail, Inc., Ohio Historical Society, and Carillon Historical Park. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would provide for an enhanced experience for the traditional visitor to National parks. Visitors would expect an enjoyable, primarily contemplative experience that would increase their knowledge of history, literature, and/or aviation. The park boundary would be enlarged at the Wright Cycle Company complex and a dedicated storage and maintenance facility would be constructed within the expanded boundary. The interpretive program at Huffman Prairie Flying Field and the interpretive center at the Wright Memorial would be further integrated, primarily by constructing a bridge over Ohio Highway 444 that would enable visitors to travel from the center to the field in five minutes. The parking area at the Wright Memorial would be expanded. A replica of the Write B Flyer would be built near Huffman Prairie Flying Field and placed in a hangar. Alternative C, the preferred alternative would continue to serve traditional visitors to national parks; however, its primary goal would be to increase regional involvement, particularly in the interpretation, education, and outreach aspects of the park's services. The park would become a vibrant part of the region and visitors would expect an active, participatory experience. One-time capital costs for implementation of alternatives B and C are estimated at $16 million to $17 million and $3.0 million to $4.0 million, respectively. Respective annual operating costs are estimated at $1.8 million to 1.9 million and $1.9 million o $2.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Alternatives B and C would significantly improve visitor programming and community outreach related to the park. Alternative C would continue to serve traditional park visitors, while increasing regional involvement. Focused at the Wright Cycle Company complex, but inclusive of all park units, Dayton Heritage National Historical Park would become a vibrant part of the region as well as the community. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would have a long-term, major adverse effect on levels of service at the intersection of Kauffman Avenue and Ohio Highway 444; mitigating actions would be implemented by the Ohio Department of Transportation, reducing the impact to a moderate level. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and Public Law 106-356.
JF  - EPA number: 060014, 328 pages, January 13, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 06-01
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Airports
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Military Facilities (Air Force)
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Carillon Historical Park
KW  - Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park
KW  - Huffman Prairie Flying Field
KW  - Ohio
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 106-356, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36377775?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DAYTON+AVIATION+HERITAGE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+DAYTON%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=DAYTON+AVIATION+HERITAGE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+DAYTON%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Dayton, Ohio; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 13, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DAYTON AVIATION HERITAGE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, DAYTON, OHIO.
AN  - 16344394; 11883
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park in Dayton, Ohio is proposed. The park, which is currently managed under a plan established in 1997 when the park had been in existence for only five years, has changed considerably since its inception due to the development of facilities, infrastructure, and site access. In addition, the terrorists attacks of September 2001 resulted in heightened security issues, particularly with respect to the operation of the Huffman Prairie Flying Field Unit. The legislated partners of the park include the National park Service, U.S. Air Force, Aviation Trail, Inc., Ohio Historical Society, and Carillon Historical Park. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would provide for an enhanced experience for the traditional visitor to National parks. Visitors would expect an enjoyable, primarily contemplative experience that would increase their knowledge of history, literature, and/or aviation. The park boundary would be enlarged at the Wright Cycle Company complex and a dedicated storage and maintenance facility would be constructed within the expanded boundary. The interpretive program at Huffman Prairie Flying Field and the interpretive center at the Wright Memorial would be further integrated, primarily by constructing a bridge over Ohio Highway 444 that would enable visitors to travel from the center to the field in five minutes. The parking area at the Wright Memorial would be expanded. A replica of the Write B Flyer would be built near Huffman Prairie Flying Field and placed in a hangar. Alternative C, the preferred alternative would continue to serve traditional visitors to national parks; however, its primary goal would be to increase regional involvement, particularly in the interpretation, education, and outreach aspects of the park's services. The park would become a vibrant part of the region and visitors would expect an active, participatory experience. One-time capital costs for implementation of alternatives B and C are estimated at $16 million to $17 million and $3.0 million to $4.0 million, respectively. Respective annual operating costs are estimated at $1.8 million to 1.9 million and $1.9 million o $2.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Alternatives B and C would significantly improve visitor programming and community outreach related to the park. Alternative C would continue to serve traditional park visitors, while increasing regional involvement. Focused at the Wright Cycle Company complex, but inclusive of all park units, Dayton Heritage National Historical Park would become a vibrant part of the region as well as the community. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would have a long-term, major adverse effect on levels of service at the intersection of Kauffman Avenue and Ohio Highway 444; mitigating actions would be implemented by the Ohio Department of Transportation, reducing the impact to a moderate level. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and Public Law 106-356.
JF  - EPA number: 060014, 328 pages, January 13, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 06-01
KW  - Aircraft
KW  - Airports
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Historic Districts
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Military Facilities (Air Force)
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Parking
KW  - Carillon Historical Park
KW  - Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park
KW  - Huffman Prairie Flying Field
KW  - Ohio
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Public Law 106-356, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16344394?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DAYTON+AVIATION+HERITAGE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+DAYTON%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=DAYTON+AVIATION+HERITAGE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+DAYTON%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Dayton, Ohio; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 13, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN. [Part 3 of 11]
T2  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN.
AN  - 36386490; 11881-060012_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition of approximately 150,510 acres of public lands to support the training mission of the U.S. Army National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, located in southeast California, is proposed. Fort Irwin encompasses approximately 642,000 acres of land near the City of Barstow. The NTC is a combat training center for thee Army, which trains 10 armored brigades each year in exercises known as rotations. Rotations last from 28 to 35 days and involve approximately 9,000 soldiers and Army civilians. The training exercises are designed to provide shoulders with the experience needed to excel at their missions. Advancements in military technology and the need to address those advancements are a driving factor for the proposed expansion of the fort. Larger ranges are needed to test and train personnel in the use of new weapon systems and strategies. It has been determined that approximately 624,470 acres of net maneuver area are required to meet Army training needs. The current maneuver area on Fort Irwin covers 350,300 acres, leaving a shortfall of 274,170 acres. For the purposes of the present proposal, the study area lies predominantly to the south, east, and west of the fort. The area also includes two parcels of land on Fort Irwin collectively known as the UTM 90 area; these areas generally lie south of the Universal Traverse Mercator 90 gridline but also include an additional parcel of land to the northwest of that coordinate. These lands were formerly used for heavy mechanized training, but were placed off-limits in 1991 due to the presence of the desert tortoise, a federally protected endangered species. This final supplement to the draft EIS of December 1996 addressing the Army's land acquisition project for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin fully replaces the 1996 EIS. All alternatives considered in the earlier EIS are no longer under consideration. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative VI), are considered in this supplement. The preferred alternative (Alternative I) would result in the acquisition of 150,510 acres. This would provide for the reintroduction of the UTM 90 area into mechanized training use. the eastern portion of this alternative includes the southern portion of the Avawatz Mountains and runs parallel, northeast to southwest, along the utilities rights-of-way of the Bureau of Land Management's Utility Planning Corridor D. The southern portion of the area consists of the UTM 90 area. The western portion of the area includes a segment of the Paradise Mountains and two of the Superior lakes. Under Alternative I, a three-mile transit route through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goldstone Complex would be improve for use by Fort Irwin personnel to allow access to Superior Valley. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition of additional maneuverable land would provide an expanded battle-space environment to enable the NTC to conduct its mission of training brigade-sized units in accordance with present and future joint and combined-arms operations doctrines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any ecological community occurring in terrain with a slope of less than 20 percent would be adversely affected. Soil and vegetation would be disturbed due to intensive use of tracked and wheeled vehicles, landing pads and similar facilities, and trenching for tank and gun emplacement. the soils on up to 141,890 acres of land would be adversely affected due to the crushing of rock outcrops, the disturbance of desert pavement, the compaction of upper soil layers, and wind and water erosion. There would be significant large-scale losses of vegetation in concentrated activity areas that are slow to recover. Large areas of Mojave creosote scrub would be lost, as would habitat for a population of desert tortoise and for Lane Mountain milk vetch, a federally protected plant species. Numerous archaeological and paleontological sites could be disturbed during training maneuvers. Maneuvers would require elimination of public access to the area for recreation and other purposes, including patent mining. One residence would be displace, and maneuvers could conflict with the mission of the Goldstone Complex.` LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Public Law 106-554, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 96-0528D, Volume 20, Number 6. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 04-0368D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060012, Supplemental EIS-621 pages, Supplement--30 pages, CD-ROM, January 12, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 3
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Death Valley National Park
KW  - National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding
KW  - Public Law 106-554, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36386490?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.title=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 12, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN. [Part 6 of 11]
T2  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN.
AN  - 36386243; 11881-060012_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition of approximately 150,510 acres of public lands to support the training mission of the U.S. Army National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, located in southeast California, is proposed. Fort Irwin encompasses approximately 642,000 acres of land near the City of Barstow. The NTC is a combat training center for thee Army, which trains 10 armored brigades each year in exercises known as rotations. Rotations last from 28 to 35 days and involve approximately 9,000 soldiers and Army civilians. The training exercises are designed to provide shoulders with the experience needed to excel at their missions. Advancements in military technology and the need to address those advancements are a driving factor for the proposed expansion of the fort. Larger ranges are needed to test and train personnel in the use of new weapon systems and strategies. It has been determined that approximately 624,470 acres of net maneuver area are required to meet Army training needs. The current maneuver area on Fort Irwin covers 350,300 acres, leaving a shortfall of 274,170 acres. For the purposes of the present proposal, the study area lies predominantly to the south, east, and west of the fort. The area also includes two parcels of land on Fort Irwin collectively known as the UTM 90 area; these areas generally lie south of the Universal Traverse Mercator 90 gridline but also include an additional parcel of land to the northwest of that coordinate. These lands were formerly used for heavy mechanized training, but were placed off-limits in 1991 due to the presence of the desert tortoise, a federally protected endangered species. This final supplement to the draft EIS of December 1996 addressing the Army's land acquisition project for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin fully replaces the 1996 EIS. All alternatives considered in the earlier EIS are no longer under consideration. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative VI), are considered in this supplement. The preferred alternative (Alternative I) would result in the acquisition of 150,510 acres. This would provide for the reintroduction of the UTM 90 area into mechanized training use. the eastern portion of this alternative includes the southern portion of the Avawatz Mountains and runs parallel, northeast to southwest, along the utilities rights-of-way of the Bureau of Land Management's Utility Planning Corridor D. The southern portion of the area consists of the UTM 90 area. The western portion of the area includes a segment of the Paradise Mountains and two of the Superior lakes. Under Alternative I, a three-mile transit route through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goldstone Complex would be improve for use by Fort Irwin personnel to allow access to Superior Valley. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition of additional maneuverable land would provide an expanded battle-space environment to enable the NTC to conduct its mission of training brigade-sized units in accordance with present and future joint and combined-arms operations doctrines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any ecological community occurring in terrain with a slope of less than 20 percent would be adversely affected. Soil and vegetation would be disturbed due to intensive use of tracked and wheeled vehicles, landing pads and similar facilities, and trenching for tank and gun emplacement. the soils on up to 141,890 acres of land would be adversely affected due to the crushing of rock outcrops, the disturbance of desert pavement, the compaction of upper soil layers, and wind and water erosion. There would be significant large-scale losses of vegetation in concentrated activity areas that are slow to recover. Large areas of Mojave creosote scrub would be lost, as would habitat for a population of desert tortoise and for Lane Mountain milk vetch, a federally protected plant species. Numerous archaeological and paleontological sites could be disturbed during training maneuvers. Maneuvers would require elimination of public access to the area for recreation and other purposes, including patent mining. One residence would be displace, and maneuvers could conflict with the mission of the Goldstone Complex.` LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Public Law 106-554, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 96-0528D, Volume 20, Number 6. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 04-0368D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060012, Supplemental EIS-621 pages, Supplement--30 pages, CD-ROM, January 12, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 6
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Death Valley National Park
KW  - National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding
KW  - Public Law 106-554, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36386243?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.title=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 12, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EOG RESOURCES INC. CHAPITA WELLS-STAGECOACH AREA NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - EOG RESOURCES INC. CHAPITA WELLS-STAGECOACH AREA NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 36386014; 11880-060011_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of natural gas resources in the Chapita Wells-Stagecoach Area (CWSA) of Unitah County, Utah is proposed by EOG Resources, Inc. The 31,872-acre CWSA lies in an existing gas-producing region in lands owned by the federal government, the state, the Northern Ute Indian Tribe, and private parties. the CWSA contains the Capita Wells Unit and the Stagecoach Unit in addition to non-unitized lands. As of March 1, 2004, the CWSA contained 325 gas-producing wells, approximately 121 miles of road, and 115 miles of pipeline. An additional 100 wells, 12 miles of access road, and 18.5 miles of pipeline, approved in 1999, remain to be drilled and/or constructed in the project area. Fifty-five of these previously approved wells would be drilled at new locations and 45 are expected to be twins (i.e., drilled at existing well locations). There are currently no oil wells or produced water disposal wells in the CWSA. EOG proposes to drill up to 627 new gas wells to the Green River, Wasatch, Mesaverde, Mancos "B", and, possibly, other formations. Of the planned wells, 473 would be drilled at new locations and 154 would be twins, representing 25 percent of the total new wells that would be drilled. The final location of well pads, roads, and pipelines would be determined through future site-specific analyses; this EIS is not a decision document. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Gas resource development would help provide for the increasing demand for natural gas throughout the nation and reduce the country's dependence on foreign sources of energy. the completion of the 627 wells and ancillary facilities over a two-year period would create $11.3 million in employment income. The operational phase of the project would generate $17.3 million over the 40-year project life. Total production revenues over the project life would amount to $2.4 billion. In addition, the project would generate $12,245 per well in annual federal mine royalties, for a total of $6.7 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance and erosion, affecting vegetation and soil over 1,735 acres, would increase sedimentation and turbidity in surface water flows. Soil losses of 4,015 tons per year would be expected. Up to 103 acre-feet per year could be lost from the Green and White rivers due to project-related water withdrawal, possibly degrading natural values provided by the associated floodplains. Developments would affect 714 acres of critical, year-long antelope habitat and 71 acres of mule deer habitat. Approximately 154 animal unit months would be lost over the long-term. Paleontological sites could be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060011, 302 pages, January 12, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 05-59
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36386014?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EOG+RESOURCES+INC.+CHAPITA+WELLS-STAGECOACH+AREA+NATURAL+GAS+DEVELOPMENT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=EOG+RESOURCES+INC.+CHAPITA+WELLS-STAGECOACH+AREA+NATURAL+GAS+DEVELOPMENT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 12, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN. [Part 9 of 11]
T2  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN.
AN  - 36384819; 11881-060012_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition of approximately 150,510 acres of public lands to support the training mission of the U.S. Army National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, located in southeast California, is proposed. Fort Irwin encompasses approximately 642,000 acres of land near the City of Barstow. The NTC is a combat training center for thee Army, which trains 10 armored brigades each year in exercises known as rotations. Rotations last from 28 to 35 days and involve approximately 9,000 soldiers and Army civilians. The training exercises are designed to provide shoulders with the experience needed to excel at their missions. Advancements in military technology and the need to address those advancements are a driving factor for the proposed expansion of the fort. Larger ranges are needed to test and train personnel in the use of new weapon systems and strategies. It has been determined that approximately 624,470 acres of net maneuver area are required to meet Army training needs. The current maneuver area on Fort Irwin covers 350,300 acres, leaving a shortfall of 274,170 acres. For the purposes of the present proposal, the study area lies predominantly to the south, east, and west of the fort. The area also includes two parcels of land on Fort Irwin collectively known as the UTM 90 area; these areas generally lie south of the Universal Traverse Mercator 90 gridline but also include an additional parcel of land to the northwest of that coordinate. These lands were formerly used for heavy mechanized training, but were placed off-limits in 1991 due to the presence of the desert tortoise, a federally protected endangered species. This final supplement to the draft EIS of December 1996 addressing the Army's land acquisition project for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin fully replaces the 1996 EIS. All alternatives considered in the earlier EIS are no longer under consideration. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative VI), are considered in this supplement. The preferred alternative (Alternative I) would result in the acquisition of 150,510 acres. This would provide for the reintroduction of the UTM 90 area into mechanized training use. the eastern portion of this alternative includes the southern portion of the Avawatz Mountains and runs parallel, northeast to southwest, along the utilities rights-of-way of the Bureau of Land Management's Utility Planning Corridor D. The southern portion of the area consists of the UTM 90 area. The western portion of the area includes a segment of the Paradise Mountains and two of the Superior lakes. Under Alternative I, a three-mile transit route through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goldstone Complex would be improve for use by Fort Irwin personnel to allow access to Superior Valley. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition of additional maneuverable land would provide an expanded battle-space environment to enable the NTC to conduct its mission of training brigade-sized units in accordance with present and future joint and combined-arms operations doctrines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any ecological community occurring in terrain with a slope of less than 20 percent would be adversely affected. Soil and vegetation would be disturbed due to intensive use of tracked and wheeled vehicles, landing pads and similar facilities, and trenching for tank and gun emplacement. the soils on up to 141,890 acres of land would be adversely affected due to the crushing of rock outcrops, the disturbance of desert pavement, the compaction of upper soil layers, and wind and water erosion. There would be significant large-scale losses of vegetation in concentrated activity areas that are slow to recover. Large areas of Mojave creosote scrub would be lost, as would habitat for a population of desert tortoise and for Lane Mountain milk vetch, a federally protected plant species. Numerous archaeological and paleontological sites could be disturbed during training maneuvers. Maneuvers would require elimination of public access to the area for recreation and other purposes, including patent mining. One residence would be displace, and maneuvers could conflict with the mission of the Goldstone Complex.` LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Public Law 106-554, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 96-0528D, Volume 20, Number 6. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 04-0368D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060012, Supplemental EIS-621 pages, Supplement--30 pages, CD-ROM, January 12, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 9
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Death Valley National Park
KW  - National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding
KW  - Public Law 106-554, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384819?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.title=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 12, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20071105//060012/060012_0010.txt of 11]
T2  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN.
AN  - 36382482; 11881-060012_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition of approximately 150,510 acres of public lands to support the training mission of the U.S. Army National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, located in southeast California, is proposed. Fort Irwin encompasses approximately 642,000 acres of land near the City of Barstow. The NTC is a combat training center for thee Army, which trains 10 armored brigades each year in exercises known as rotations. Rotations last from 28 to 35 days and involve approximately 9,000 soldiers and Army civilians. The training exercises are designed to provide shoulders with the experience needed to excel at their missions. Advancements in military technology and the need to address those advancements are a driving factor for the proposed expansion of the fort. Larger ranges are needed to test and train personnel in the use of new weapon systems and strategies. It has been determined that approximately 624,470 acres of net maneuver area are required to meet Army training needs. The current maneuver area on Fort Irwin covers 350,300 acres, leaving a shortfall of 274,170 acres. For the purposes of the present proposal, the study area lies predominantly to the south, east, and west of the fort. The area also includes two parcels of land on Fort Irwin collectively known as the UTM 90 area; these areas generally lie south of the Universal Traverse Mercator 90 gridline but also include an additional parcel of land to the northwest of that coordinate. These lands were formerly used for heavy mechanized training, but were placed off-limits in 1991 due to the presence of the desert tortoise, a federally protected endangered species. This final supplement to the draft EIS of December 1996 addressing the Army's land acquisition project for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin fully replaces the 1996 EIS. All alternatives considered in the earlier EIS are no longer under consideration. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative VI), are considered in this supplement. The preferred alternative (Alternative I) would result in the acquisition of 150,510 acres. This would provide for the reintroduction of the UTM 90 area into mechanized training use. the eastern portion of this alternative includes the southern portion of the Avawatz Mountains and runs parallel, northeast to southwest, along the utilities rights-of-way of the Bureau of Land Management's Utility Planning Corridor D. The southern portion of the area consists of the UTM 90 area. The western portion of the area includes a segment of the Paradise Mountains and two of the Superior lakes. Under Alternative I, a three-mile transit route through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goldstone Complex would be improve for use by Fort Irwin personnel to allow access to Superior Valley. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition of additional maneuverable land would provide an expanded battle-space environment to enable the NTC to conduct its mission of training brigade-sized units in accordance with present and future joint and combined-arms operations doctrines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any ecological community occurring in terrain with a slope of less than 20 percent would be adversely affected. Soil and vegetation would be disturbed due to intensive use of tracked and wheeled vehicles, landing pads and similar facilities, and trenching for tank and gun emplacement. the soils on up to 141,890 acres of land would be adversely affected due to the crushing of rock outcrops, the disturbance of desert pavement, the compaction of upper soil layers, and wind and water erosion. There would be significant large-scale losses of vegetation in concentrated activity areas that are slow to recover. Large areas of Mojave creosote scrub would be lost, as would habitat for a population of desert tortoise and for Lane Mountain milk vetch, a federally protected plant species. Numerous archaeological and paleontological sites could be disturbed during training maneuvers. Maneuvers would require elimination of public access to the area for recreation and other purposes, including patent mining. One residence would be displace, and maneuvers could conflict with the mission of the Goldstone Complex.` LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Public Law 106-554, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 96-0528D, Volume 20, Number 6. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 04-0368D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060012, Supplemental EIS-621 pages, Supplement--30 pages, CD-ROM, January 12, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20071105//060012/060012_0010.txt
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Death Valley National Park
KW  - National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding
KW  - Public Law 106-554, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382482?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.title=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 12, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN. [Part 5 of 11]
T2  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN.
AN  - 36382420; 11881-060012_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition of approximately 150,510 acres of public lands to support the training mission of the U.S. Army National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, located in southeast California, is proposed. Fort Irwin encompasses approximately 642,000 acres of land near the City of Barstow. The NTC is a combat training center for thee Army, which trains 10 armored brigades each year in exercises known as rotations. Rotations last from 28 to 35 days and involve approximately 9,000 soldiers and Army civilians. The training exercises are designed to provide shoulders with the experience needed to excel at their missions. Advancements in military technology and the need to address those advancements are a driving factor for the proposed expansion of the fort. Larger ranges are needed to test and train personnel in the use of new weapon systems and strategies. It has been determined that approximately 624,470 acres of net maneuver area are required to meet Army training needs. The current maneuver area on Fort Irwin covers 350,300 acres, leaving a shortfall of 274,170 acres. For the purposes of the present proposal, the study area lies predominantly to the south, east, and west of the fort. The area also includes two parcels of land on Fort Irwin collectively known as the UTM 90 area; these areas generally lie south of the Universal Traverse Mercator 90 gridline but also include an additional parcel of land to the northwest of that coordinate. These lands were formerly used for heavy mechanized training, but were placed off-limits in 1991 due to the presence of the desert tortoise, a federally protected endangered species. This final supplement to the draft EIS of December 1996 addressing the Army's land acquisition project for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin fully replaces the 1996 EIS. All alternatives considered in the earlier EIS are no longer under consideration. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative VI), are considered in this supplement. The preferred alternative (Alternative I) would result in the acquisition of 150,510 acres. This would provide for the reintroduction of the UTM 90 area into mechanized training use. the eastern portion of this alternative includes the southern portion of the Avawatz Mountains and runs parallel, northeast to southwest, along the utilities rights-of-way of the Bureau of Land Management's Utility Planning Corridor D. The southern portion of the area consists of the UTM 90 area. The western portion of the area includes a segment of the Paradise Mountains and two of the Superior lakes. Under Alternative I, a three-mile transit route through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goldstone Complex would be improve for use by Fort Irwin personnel to allow access to Superior Valley. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition of additional maneuverable land would provide an expanded battle-space environment to enable the NTC to conduct its mission of training brigade-sized units in accordance with present and future joint and combined-arms operations doctrines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any ecological community occurring in terrain with a slope of less than 20 percent would be adversely affected. Soil and vegetation would be disturbed due to intensive use of tracked and wheeled vehicles, landing pads and similar facilities, and trenching for tank and gun emplacement. the soils on up to 141,890 acres of land would be adversely affected due to the crushing of rock outcrops, the disturbance of desert pavement, the compaction of upper soil layers, and wind and water erosion. There would be significant large-scale losses of vegetation in concentrated activity areas that are slow to recover. Large areas of Mojave creosote scrub would be lost, as would habitat for a population of desert tortoise and for Lane Mountain milk vetch, a federally protected plant species. Numerous archaeological and paleontological sites could be disturbed during training maneuvers. Maneuvers would require elimination of public access to the area for recreation and other purposes, including patent mining. One residence would be displace, and maneuvers could conflict with the mission of the Goldstone Complex.` LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Public Law 106-554, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 96-0528D, Volume 20, Number 6. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 04-0368D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060012, Supplemental EIS-621 pages, Supplement--30 pages, CD-ROM, January 12, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 5
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Death Valley National Park
KW  - National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding
KW  - Public Law 106-554, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382420?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.title=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 12, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN. [Part 11 of 11]
T2  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN.
AN  - 36375123; 11881-060012_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition of approximately 150,510 acres of public lands to support the training mission of the U.S. Army National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, located in southeast California, is proposed. Fort Irwin encompasses approximately 642,000 acres of land near the City of Barstow. The NTC is a combat training center for thee Army, which trains 10 armored brigades each year in exercises known as rotations. Rotations last from 28 to 35 days and involve approximately 9,000 soldiers and Army civilians. The training exercises are designed to provide shoulders with the experience needed to excel at their missions. Advancements in military technology and the need to address those advancements are a driving factor for the proposed expansion of the fort. Larger ranges are needed to test and train personnel in the use of new weapon systems and strategies. It has been determined that approximately 624,470 acres of net maneuver area are required to meet Army training needs. The current maneuver area on Fort Irwin covers 350,300 acres, leaving a shortfall of 274,170 acres. For the purposes of the present proposal, the study area lies predominantly to the south, east, and west of the fort. The area also includes two parcels of land on Fort Irwin collectively known as the UTM 90 area; these areas generally lie south of the Universal Traverse Mercator 90 gridline but also include an additional parcel of land to the northwest of that coordinate. These lands were formerly used for heavy mechanized training, but were placed off-limits in 1991 due to the presence of the desert tortoise, a federally protected endangered species. This final supplement to the draft EIS of December 1996 addressing the Army's land acquisition project for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin fully replaces the 1996 EIS. All alternatives considered in the earlier EIS are no longer under consideration. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative VI), are considered in this supplement. The preferred alternative (Alternative I) would result in the acquisition of 150,510 acres. This would provide for the reintroduction of the UTM 90 area into mechanized training use. the eastern portion of this alternative includes the southern portion of the Avawatz Mountains and runs parallel, northeast to southwest, along the utilities rights-of-way of the Bureau of Land Management's Utility Planning Corridor D. The southern portion of the area consists of the UTM 90 area. The western portion of the area includes a segment of the Paradise Mountains and two of the Superior lakes. Under Alternative I, a three-mile transit route through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goldstone Complex would be improve for use by Fort Irwin personnel to allow access to Superior Valley. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition of additional maneuverable land would provide an expanded battle-space environment to enable the NTC to conduct its mission of training brigade-sized units in accordance with present and future joint and combined-arms operations doctrines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any ecological community occurring in terrain with a slope of less than 20 percent would be adversely affected. Soil and vegetation would be disturbed due to intensive use of tracked and wheeled vehicles, landing pads and similar facilities, and trenching for tank and gun emplacement. the soils on up to 141,890 acres of land would be adversely affected due to the crushing of rock outcrops, the disturbance of desert pavement, the compaction of upper soil layers, and wind and water erosion. There would be significant large-scale losses of vegetation in concentrated activity areas that are slow to recover. Large areas of Mojave creosote scrub would be lost, as would habitat for a population of desert tortoise and for Lane Mountain milk vetch, a federally protected plant species. Numerous archaeological and paleontological sites could be disturbed during training maneuvers. Maneuvers would require elimination of public access to the area for recreation and other purposes, including patent mining. One residence would be displace, and maneuvers could conflict with the mission of the Goldstone Complex.` LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Public Law 106-554, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 96-0528D, Volume 20, Number 6. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 04-0368D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060012, Supplemental EIS-621 pages, Supplement--30 pages, CD-ROM, January 12, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 11
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Death Valley National Park
KW  - National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding
KW  - Public Law 106-554, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375123?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.title=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 12, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN. [Part 8 of 11]
T2  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN.
AN  - 36372577; 11881-060012_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition of approximately 150,510 acres of public lands to support the training mission of the U.S. Army National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, located in southeast California, is proposed. Fort Irwin encompasses approximately 642,000 acres of land near the City of Barstow. The NTC is a combat training center for thee Army, which trains 10 armored brigades each year in exercises known as rotations. Rotations last from 28 to 35 days and involve approximately 9,000 soldiers and Army civilians. The training exercises are designed to provide shoulders with the experience needed to excel at their missions. Advancements in military technology and the need to address those advancements are a driving factor for the proposed expansion of the fort. Larger ranges are needed to test and train personnel in the use of new weapon systems and strategies. It has been determined that approximately 624,470 acres of net maneuver area are required to meet Army training needs. The current maneuver area on Fort Irwin covers 350,300 acres, leaving a shortfall of 274,170 acres. For the purposes of the present proposal, the study area lies predominantly to the south, east, and west of the fort. The area also includes two parcels of land on Fort Irwin collectively known as the UTM 90 area; these areas generally lie south of the Universal Traverse Mercator 90 gridline but also include an additional parcel of land to the northwest of that coordinate. These lands were formerly used for heavy mechanized training, but were placed off-limits in 1991 due to the presence of the desert tortoise, a federally protected endangered species. This final supplement to the draft EIS of December 1996 addressing the Army's land acquisition project for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin fully replaces the 1996 EIS. All alternatives considered in the earlier EIS are no longer under consideration. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative VI), are considered in this supplement. The preferred alternative (Alternative I) would result in the acquisition of 150,510 acres. This would provide for the reintroduction of the UTM 90 area into mechanized training use. the eastern portion of this alternative includes the southern portion of the Avawatz Mountains and runs parallel, northeast to southwest, along the utilities rights-of-way of the Bureau of Land Management's Utility Planning Corridor D. The southern portion of the area consists of the UTM 90 area. The western portion of the area includes a segment of the Paradise Mountains and two of the Superior lakes. Under Alternative I, a three-mile transit route through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goldstone Complex would be improve for use by Fort Irwin personnel to allow access to Superior Valley. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition of additional maneuverable land would provide an expanded battle-space environment to enable the NTC to conduct its mission of training brigade-sized units in accordance with present and future joint and combined-arms operations doctrines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any ecological community occurring in terrain with a slope of less than 20 percent would be adversely affected. Soil and vegetation would be disturbed due to intensive use of tracked and wheeled vehicles, landing pads and similar facilities, and trenching for tank and gun emplacement. the soils on up to 141,890 acres of land would be adversely affected due to the crushing of rock outcrops, the disturbance of desert pavement, the compaction of upper soil layers, and wind and water erosion. There would be significant large-scale losses of vegetation in concentrated activity areas that are slow to recover. Large areas of Mojave creosote scrub would be lost, as would habitat for a population of desert tortoise and for Lane Mountain milk vetch, a federally protected plant species. Numerous archaeological and paleontological sites could be disturbed during training maneuvers. Maneuvers would require elimination of public access to the area for recreation and other purposes, including patent mining. One residence would be displace, and maneuvers could conflict with the mission of the Goldstone Complex.` LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Public Law 106-554, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 96-0528D, Volume 20, Number 6. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 04-0368D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060012, Supplemental EIS-621 pages, Supplement--30 pages, CD-ROM, January 12, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 8
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Death Valley National Park
KW  - National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding
KW  - Public Law 106-554, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372577?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.title=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 12, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN. [Part 7 of 11]
T2  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN.
AN  - 36371390; 11881-060012_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition of approximately 150,510 acres of public lands to support the training mission of the U.S. Army National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, located in southeast California, is proposed. Fort Irwin encompasses approximately 642,000 acres of land near the City of Barstow. The NTC is a combat training center for thee Army, which trains 10 armored brigades each year in exercises known as rotations. Rotations last from 28 to 35 days and involve approximately 9,000 soldiers and Army civilians. The training exercises are designed to provide shoulders with the experience needed to excel at their missions. Advancements in military technology and the need to address those advancements are a driving factor for the proposed expansion of the fort. Larger ranges are needed to test and train personnel in the use of new weapon systems and strategies. It has been determined that approximately 624,470 acres of net maneuver area are required to meet Army training needs. The current maneuver area on Fort Irwin covers 350,300 acres, leaving a shortfall of 274,170 acres. For the purposes of the present proposal, the study area lies predominantly to the south, east, and west of the fort. The area also includes two parcels of land on Fort Irwin collectively known as the UTM 90 area; these areas generally lie south of the Universal Traverse Mercator 90 gridline but also include an additional parcel of land to the northwest of that coordinate. These lands were formerly used for heavy mechanized training, but were placed off-limits in 1991 due to the presence of the desert tortoise, a federally protected endangered species. This final supplement to the draft EIS of December 1996 addressing the Army's land acquisition project for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin fully replaces the 1996 EIS. All alternatives considered in the earlier EIS are no longer under consideration. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative VI), are considered in this supplement. The preferred alternative (Alternative I) would result in the acquisition of 150,510 acres. This would provide for the reintroduction of the UTM 90 area into mechanized training use. the eastern portion of this alternative includes the southern portion of the Avawatz Mountains and runs parallel, northeast to southwest, along the utilities rights-of-way of the Bureau of Land Management's Utility Planning Corridor D. The southern portion of the area consists of the UTM 90 area. The western portion of the area includes a segment of the Paradise Mountains and two of the Superior lakes. Under Alternative I, a three-mile transit route through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goldstone Complex would be improve for use by Fort Irwin personnel to allow access to Superior Valley. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition of additional maneuverable land would provide an expanded battle-space environment to enable the NTC to conduct its mission of training brigade-sized units in accordance with present and future joint and combined-arms operations doctrines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any ecological community occurring in terrain with a slope of less than 20 percent would be adversely affected. Soil and vegetation would be disturbed due to intensive use of tracked and wheeled vehicles, landing pads and similar facilities, and trenching for tank and gun emplacement. the soils on up to 141,890 acres of land would be adversely affected due to the crushing of rock outcrops, the disturbance of desert pavement, the compaction of upper soil layers, and wind and water erosion. There would be significant large-scale losses of vegetation in concentrated activity areas that are slow to recover. Large areas of Mojave creosote scrub would be lost, as would habitat for a population of desert tortoise and for Lane Mountain milk vetch, a federally protected plant species. Numerous archaeological and paleontological sites could be disturbed during training maneuvers. Maneuvers would require elimination of public access to the area for recreation and other purposes, including patent mining. One residence would be displace, and maneuvers could conflict with the mission of the Goldstone Complex.` LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Public Law 106-554, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 96-0528D, Volume 20, Number 6. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 04-0368D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060012, Supplemental EIS-621 pages, Supplement--30 pages, CD-ROM, January 12, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 7
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Death Valley National Park
KW  - National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding
KW  - Public Law 106-554, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371390?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.title=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 12, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EOG RESOURCES INC. CHAPITA WELLS-STAGECOACH AREA NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - EOG RESOURCES INC. CHAPITA WELLS-STAGECOACH AREA NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 36371277; 11880-060011_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of natural gas resources in the Chapita Wells-Stagecoach Area (CWSA) of Unitah County, Utah is proposed by EOG Resources, Inc. The 31,872-acre CWSA lies in an existing gas-producing region in lands owned by the federal government, the state, the Northern Ute Indian Tribe, and private parties. the CWSA contains the Capita Wells Unit and the Stagecoach Unit in addition to non-unitized lands. As of March 1, 2004, the CWSA contained 325 gas-producing wells, approximately 121 miles of road, and 115 miles of pipeline. An additional 100 wells, 12 miles of access road, and 18.5 miles of pipeline, approved in 1999, remain to be drilled and/or constructed in the project area. Fifty-five of these previously approved wells would be drilled at new locations and 45 are expected to be twins (i.e., drilled at existing well locations). There are currently no oil wells or produced water disposal wells in the CWSA. EOG proposes to drill up to 627 new gas wells to the Green River, Wasatch, Mesaverde, Mancos "B", and, possibly, other formations. Of the planned wells, 473 would be drilled at new locations and 154 would be twins, representing 25 percent of the total new wells that would be drilled. The final location of well pads, roads, and pipelines would be determined through future site-specific analyses; this EIS is not a decision document. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Gas resource development would help provide for the increasing demand for natural gas throughout the nation and reduce the country's dependence on foreign sources of energy. the completion of the 627 wells and ancillary facilities over a two-year period would create $11.3 million in employment income. The operational phase of the project would generate $17.3 million over the 40-year project life. Total production revenues over the project life would amount to $2.4 billion. In addition, the project would generate $12,245 per well in annual federal mine royalties, for a total of $6.7 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance and erosion, affecting vegetation and soil over 1,735 acres, would increase sedimentation and turbidity in surface water flows. Soil losses of 4,015 tons per year would be expected. Up to 103 acre-feet per year could be lost from the Green and White rivers due to project-related water withdrawal, possibly degrading natural values provided by the associated floodplains. Developments would affect 714 acres of critical, year-long antelope habitat and 71 acres of mule deer habitat. Approximately 154 animal unit months would be lost over the long-term. Paleontological sites could be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060011, 302 pages, January 12, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 05-59
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371277?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EOG+RESOURCES+INC.+CHAPITA+WELLS-STAGECOACH+AREA+NATURAL+GAS+DEVELOPMENT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=EOG+RESOURCES+INC.+CHAPITA+WELLS-STAGECOACH+AREA+NATURAL+GAS+DEVELOPMENT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 12, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN. [Part 4 of 11]
T2  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN.
AN  - 36368351; 11881-060012_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition of approximately 150,510 acres of public lands to support the training mission of the U.S. Army National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, located in southeast California, is proposed. Fort Irwin encompasses approximately 642,000 acres of land near the City of Barstow. The NTC is a combat training center for thee Army, which trains 10 armored brigades each year in exercises known as rotations. Rotations last from 28 to 35 days and involve approximately 9,000 soldiers and Army civilians. The training exercises are designed to provide shoulders with the experience needed to excel at their missions. Advancements in military technology and the need to address those advancements are a driving factor for the proposed expansion of the fort. Larger ranges are needed to test and train personnel in the use of new weapon systems and strategies. It has been determined that approximately 624,470 acres of net maneuver area are required to meet Army training needs. The current maneuver area on Fort Irwin covers 350,300 acres, leaving a shortfall of 274,170 acres. For the purposes of the present proposal, the study area lies predominantly to the south, east, and west of the fort. The area also includes two parcels of land on Fort Irwin collectively known as the UTM 90 area; these areas generally lie south of the Universal Traverse Mercator 90 gridline but also include an additional parcel of land to the northwest of that coordinate. These lands were formerly used for heavy mechanized training, but were placed off-limits in 1991 due to the presence of the desert tortoise, a federally protected endangered species. This final supplement to the draft EIS of December 1996 addressing the Army's land acquisition project for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin fully replaces the 1996 EIS. All alternatives considered in the earlier EIS are no longer under consideration. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative VI), are considered in this supplement. The preferred alternative (Alternative I) would result in the acquisition of 150,510 acres. This would provide for the reintroduction of the UTM 90 area into mechanized training use. the eastern portion of this alternative includes the southern portion of the Avawatz Mountains and runs parallel, northeast to southwest, along the utilities rights-of-way of the Bureau of Land Management's Utility Planning Corridor D. The southern portion of the area consists of the UTM 90 area. The western portion of the area includes a segment of the Paradise Mountains and two of the Superior lakes. Under Alternative I, a three-mile transit route through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goldstone Complex would be improve for use by Fort Irwin personnel to allow access to Superior Valley. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition of additional maneuverable land would provide an expanded battle-space environment to enable the NTC to conduct its mission of training brigade-sized units in accordance with present and future joint and combined-arms operations doctrines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any ecological community occurring in terrain with a slope of less than 20 percent would be adversely affected. Soil and vegetation would be disturbed due to intensive use of tracked and wheeled vehicles, landing pads and similar facilities, and trenching for tank and gun emplacement. the soils on up to 141,890 acres of land would be adversely affected due to the crushing of rock outcrops, the disturbance of desert pavement, the compaction of upper soil layers, and wind and water erosion. There would be significant large-scale losses of vegetation in concentrated activity areas that are slow to recover. Large areas of Mojave creosote scrub would be lost, as would habitat for a population of desert tortoise and for Lane Mountain milk vetch, a federally protected plant species. Numerous archaeological and paleontological sites could be disturbed during training maneuvers. Maneuvers would require elimination of public access to the area for recreation and other purposes, including patent mining. One residence would be displace, and maneuvers could conflict with the mission of the Goldstone Complex.` LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Public Law 106-554, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 96-0528D, Volume 20, Number 6. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 04-0368D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060012, Supplemental EIS-621 pages, Supplement--30 pages, CD-ROM, January 12, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 4
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Death Valley National Park
KW  - National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding
KW  - Public Law 106-554, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368351?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.title=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 12, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN. [Part 2 of 11]
T2  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN.
AN  - 36368241; 11881-060012_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition of approximately 150,510 acres of public lands to support the training mission of the U.S. Army National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, located in southeast California, is proposed. Fort Irwin encompasses approximately 642,000 acres of land near the City of Barstow. The NTC is a combat training center for thee Army, which trains 10 armored brigades each year in exercises known as rotations. Rotations last from 28 to 35 days and involve approximately 9,000 soldiers and Army civilians. The training exercises are designed to provide shoulders with the experience needed to excel at their missions. Advancements in military technology and the need to address those advancements are a driving factor for the proposed expansion of the fort. Larger ranges are needed to test and train personnel in the use of new weapon systems and strategies. It has been determined that approximately 624,470 acres of net maneuver area are required to meet Army training needs. The current maneuver area on Fort Irwin covers 350,300 acres, leaving a shortfall of 274,170 acres. For the purposes of the present proposal, the study area lies predominantly to the south, east, and west of the fort. The area also includes two parcels of land on Fort Irwin collectively known as the UTM 90 area; these areas generally lie south of the Universal Traverse Mercator 90 gridline but also include an additional parcel of land to the northwest of that coordinate. These lands were formerly used for heavy mechanized training, but were placed off-limits in 1991 due to the presence of the desert tortoise, a federally protected endangered species. This final supplement to the draft EIS of December 1996 addressing the Army's land acquisition project for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin fully replaces the 1996 EIS. All alternatives considered in the earlier EIS are no longer under consideration. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative VI), are considered in this supplement. The preferred alternative (Alternative I) would result in the acquisition of 150,510 acres. This would provide for the reintroduction of the UTM 90 area into mechanized training use. the eastern portion of this alternative includes the southern portion of the Avawatz Mountains and runs parallel, northeast to southwest, along the utilities rights-of-way of the Bureau of Land Management's Utility Planning Corridor D. The southern portion of the area consists of the UTM 90 area. The western portion of the area includes a segment of the Paradise Mountains and two of the Superior lakes. Under Alternative I, a three-mile transit route through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goldstone Complex would be improve for use by Fort Irwin personnel to allow access to Superior Valley. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition of additional maneuverable land would provide an expanded battle-space environment to enable the NTC to conduct its mission of training brigade-sized units in accordance with present and future joint and combined-arms operations doctrines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any ecological community occurring in terrain with a slope of less than 20 percent would be adversely affected. Soil and vegetation would be disturbed due to intensive use of tracked and wheeled vehicles, landing pads and similar facilities, and trenching for tank and gun emplacement. the soils on up to 141,890 acres of land would be adversely affected due to the crushing of rock outcrops, the disturbance of desert pavement, the compaction of upper soil layers, and wind and water erosion. There would be significant large-scale losses of vegetation in concentrated activity areas that are slow to recover. Large areas of Mojave creosote scrub would be lost, as would habitat for a population of desert tortoise and for Lane Mountain milk vetch, a federally protected plant species. Numerous archaeological and paleontological sites could be disturbed during training maneuvers. Maneuvers would require elimination of public access to the area for recreation and other purposes, including patent mining. One residence would be displace, and maneuvers could conflict with the mission of the Goldstone Complex.` LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Public Law 106-554, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 96-0528D, Volume 20, Number 6. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 04-0368D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060012, Supplemental EIS-621 pages, Supplement--30 pages, CD-ROM, January 12, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 2
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Death Valley National Park
KW  - National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding
KW  - Public Law 106-554, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368241?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.title=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 12, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN. [Part 1 of 11]
T2  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN.
AN  - 36368199; 11881-060012_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition of approximately 150,510 acres of public lands to support the training mission of the U.S. Army National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, located in southeast California, is proposed. Fort Irwin encompasses approximately 642,000 acres of land near the City of Barstow. The NTC is a combat training center for thee Army, which trains 10 armored brigades each year in exercises known as rotations. Rotations last from 28 to 35 days and involve approximately 9,000 soldiers and Army civilians. The training exercises are designed to provide shoulders with the experience needed to excel at their missions. Advancements in military technology and the need to address those advancements are a driving factor for the proposed expansion of the fort. Larger ranges are needed to test and train personnel in the use of new weapon systems and strategies. It has been determined that approximately 624,470 acres of net maneuver area are required to meet Army training needs. The current maneuver area on Fort Irwin covers 350,300 acres, leaving a shortfall of 274,170 acres. For the purposes of the present proposal, the study area lies predominantly to the south, east, and west of the fort. The area also includes two parcels of land on Fort Irwin collectively known as the UTM 90 area; these areas generally lie south of the Universal Traverse Mercator 90 gridline but also include an additional parcel of land to the northwest of that coordinate. These lands were formerly used for heavy mechanized training, but were placed off-limits in 1991 due to the presence of the desert tortoise, a federally protected endangered species. This final supplement to the draft EIS of December 1996 addressing the Army's land acquisition project for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin fully replaces the 1996 EIS. All alternatives considered in the earlier EIS are no longer under consideration. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative VI), are considered in this supplement. The preferred alternative (Alternative I) would result in the acquisition of 150,510 acres. This would provide for the reintroduction of the UTM 90 area into mechanized training use. the eastern portion of this alternative includes the southern portion of the Avawatz Mountains and runs parallel, northeast to southwest, along the utilities rights-of-way of the Bureau of Land Management's Utility Planning Corridor D. The southern portion of the area consists of the UTM 90 area. The western portion of the area includes a segment of the Paradise Mountains and two of the Superior lakes. Under Alternative I, a three-mile transit route through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goldstone Complex would be improve for use by Fort Irwin personnel to allow access to Superior Valley. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition of additional maneuverable land would provide an expanded battle-space environment to enable the NTC to conduct its mission of training brigade-sized units in accordance with present and future joint and combined-arms operations doctrines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any ecological community occurring in terrain with a slope of less than 20 percent would be adversely affected. Soil and vegetation would be disturbed due to intensive use of tracked and wheeled vehicles, landing pads and similar facilities, and trenching for tank and gun emplacement. the soils on up to 141,890 acres of land would be adversely affected due to the crushing of rock outcrops, the disturbance of desert pavement, the compaction of upper soil layers, and wind and water erosion. There would be significant large-scale losses of vegetation in concentrated activity areas that are slow to recover. Large areas of Mojave creosote scrub would be lost, as would habitat for a population of desert tortoise and for Lane Mountain milk vetch, a federally protected plant species. Numerous archaeological and paleontological sites could be disturbed during training maneuvers. Maneuvers would require elimination of public access to the area for recreation and other purposes, including patent mining. One residence would be displace, and maneuvers could conflict with the mission of the Goldstone Complex.` LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Public Law 106-554, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 96-0528D, Volume 20, Number 6. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 04-0368D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060012, Supplemental EIS-621 pages, Supplement--30 pages, CD-ROM, January 12, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 1
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Death Valley National Park
KW  - National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding
KW  - Public Law 106-554, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368199?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.title=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 12, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LONG-TERM MISCELLANEOUS PURPOSES CONTRACT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 36339879; 12086
AB  - PURPOSE: The conclusion of a long-term (40-year) miscellaneous purposes contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and Carlsbad Irrigation District (CID) is proposed to allow the use of Carlsbad Project water for purposes other than irrigation in the area served by the CID in New Mexico. The CID operates the Carlsbad Project to provide water for CID users authorized to obtain water to irrigate 25,055 acres of land, with 70 to 80 percent of the authorized land receiving irrigation water each year. In 1948, New Mexico and Texas entered into the Pecos River Compact, upon which Texas filed a successful suit before the U.S. Supreme Court resulting in a decision prohibiting New Mexico from falling short in its deliveries of water across the New Mexico-Texas border. Reclamation and the CID have entered into three previous short-term miscellaneous purposes contracts. In 2003, the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, Reclamation, CID, and Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District entered into a settlement agreement that resolves water rights litigation, implements a plan to ensure delivery of water to the CID and state line, and settles many other water management issues related to the Pecos River. The agreement requires Reclamation and the CID to enter into the proposed long-term contract to allow the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission to use Carlsbad project water for miscellaneous purposes, specifically, delivery to the state line. The currently proposed long-term miscellaneous purposes contract would allow the Commission to use up to 50,000 acre-feet of project water per year for delivery to Texas. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The long-term contract would partially fulfill the settlement agreement. The water would be used to maintain long-term compliance with the Pecos River Compact and the Texas versus New Mexico Amended Decree of the U.S. Supreme Court. Pecos River flow augmentation would substantially improve water quality and aquatic habitat, as well as increasing recreational opportunities, in the river below Avalon Dam and at Red Bluff gauge. Emergent wetland vegetation would benefit. Priority calls for water, under the settlement agreement, would be less likely, resulting in fewer socioeconomic disturbances. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: CID Main Canal flows would decline after 2009, reducing project efficiency. Base flows into the Pecos River would decline as well. Emergent wetland vegetation would suffer accordingly. Crop revenue for CID users would decline $492,000 annually after 2009. LEGAL MANDATES: Sale of Water for Miscellaneous Purposes Act of 1920.
JF  - EPA number: 060010, 181 pages, January 12, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 05-59
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Pecos River
KW  - Texas
KW  - Sale of Water for Miscellaneous Purposes Act of 1920, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36339879?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LONG-TERM+MISCELLANEOUS+PURPOSES+CONTRACT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=LONG-TERM+MISCELLANEOUS+PURPOSES+CONTRACT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque, New Mexico; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 12, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, ALASKA: BACKCOUNTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT.
AN  - 16355991; 11879
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of an updated backcountry management plan for the Denali National Park and Preserve of Alaska is proposed. The study area encompasses 6.0 million acres. the existing 1976 backcountry planning document and the 1986 general management plan are, respectively, out-of-date with respect to legislative mandates or fail to address backcountry management needs. Visitation has grown dramatically for some backcountry activities, requiring new methods of management. The proposed plan would address management of all park and preserve areas not included in the Entrance Area and the South Side Development Concept Plans, including the designated wilderness in the former Mount McKinley National Mark, the national park additions, the northwest and southwest national preserve areas, and the park road corridor west of park headquarters during the winter season. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. All alternatives address management areas, access management, wilderness management, commercial services planning, backcountry facilities, administrative and scientific activities, and easements and boundary changes. Each of the four action alternatives would provide for growth in the level of backcountry use, with additional facilities and services proposed under three of the four alternatives. the preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would provide for expanded recreational opportunities in many areas of the park and preserve for activities that are particularly well suited to the unique character of Denali. Use levels would not exceed those that maintain the management vision for a particular unit. Patterns and types of use would be somewhat similar to current conditions, but increases in the levels of use would be noticeable at several locations. The conclusion of a long-term (40-year) miscellaneous purposes contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and Carlsbad Irrigation District (CID) is proposed to allow the use of Carlsbad Project water for purposes other than irrigation in the area served by the CID in New Mexico. THE CID operates the Carlsbad Project to provide water for CID users authorized to obtain water to irrigate 25,055 acres of land, with 70 p 80 percent of the authorized land receiving irrigation water each year. In 1948, New Mexico and Texas entered into the Pecos River Compact, upon which Texas filed a successful suit before the U.S. Supreme Court resulting in a decision prohibiting New Mexico from falling short in its deliveries of water across the New Mexico-Texas border. Reclamation and the CID have entered into three previous short-term miscellaneous purposes contracts. In 2003, the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, Reclamation, CID, and Pecos Valley Artesian Conservancy District entered into a settlement agreement that resolves water rights litigation, implements a plan to ensure delivery of water to the CID and state line, and settles many other water management issues related to the Pecos River. the agreement requires Reclamation and the CID to enter into the proposed long-term contract to allow the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission to use Carlsbad project water for miscellaneous purposes, specifically, delivery to the state line. The currently proposed long-term miscellaneous purposes contract would allow the Commission to use up to 50,000 acre-feet of project water per year for delivery to Texas. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide future generations with a variety of opportunities to experience the Denali backcountry while protecting park wildlife and other park Resources. The preferred alternative would attain a wide range of beneficial uses of the environment in the form of wilderness recreational opportunity without significantly degrading important park resources. The plan would achieve a reasonable balance between population and resource use that would allow for positive socioeconomic benefits for local communities and opportunities for diverse recreational opportunities. The long-term contract would partially fulfill the settlement agreement. the water would be used to maintain long-term compliance with the Pecos River Compact and the Texas versus New Mexico Amended Decree of the U.S. Supreme Court. Pecos River flow augmentation would substantially improve water quality and aquatic habitat, as well as increasing recreational opportunities, in the river below Avalon Dam and at Red Bluff gauge. Emergent wetland vegetation would benefit. Priority calls for water, under the settlement agreement, would be less likely, resulting in fewer socioeconomic disturbances. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, and the natural soundscape would experience some disturbance in some areas. Some recreationists would be disturbed by the presence of motorized vehicles, particularly snowmobiles. CID Main Canal flows would decline after 2009, reducing project efficiency. Base flows into the Pecos River would decline as well. Emergent wetland vegetation would suffer accordingly. Crop revenue for CID users would decline $492,000 annually after 2009. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0277D Volume 27, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 060009, 379 pages, CD-ROM, January 12, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 03-06
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Land Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Noise
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Canals
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Alaska
KW  - Denali National Park and Preserve
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Pecos River
KW  - Texas
KW  - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance
KW  - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance
KW  - Sale of Water for Miscellaneous Purposes Act of 1920, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16355991?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+BACKCOUNTRY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT.&rft.title=DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+BACKCOUNTRY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of The Interior, National Park Service, Denali Park, Alaska; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 12, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN.
AN  - 16353453; 11881
AB  - PURPOSE: The acquisition of approximately 150,510 acres of public lands to support the training mission of the U.S. Army National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, located in southeast California, is proposed. Fort Irwin encompasses approximately 642,000 acres of land near the City of Barstow. The NTC is a combat training center for thee Army, which trains 10 armored brigades each year in exercises known as rotations. Rotations last from 28 to 35 days and involve approximately 9,000 soldiers and Army civilians. The training exercises are designed to provide shoulders with the experience needed to excel at their missions. Advancements in military technology and the need to address those advancements are a driving factor for the proposed expansion of the fort. Larger ranges are needed to test and train personnel in the use of new weapon systems and strategies. It has been determined that approximately 624,470 acres of net maneuver area are required to meet Army training needs. The current maneuver area on Fort Irwin covers 350,300 acres, leaving a shortfall of 274,170 acres. For the purposes of the present proposal, the study area lies predominantly to the south, east, and west of the fort. The area also includes two parcels of land on Fort Irwin collectively known as the UTM 90 area; these areas generally lie south of the Universal Traverse Mercator 90 gridline but also include an additional parcel of land to the northwest of that coordinate. These lands were formerly used for heavy mechanized training, but were placed off-limits in 1991 due to the presence of the desert tortoise, a federally protected endangered species. This final supplement to the draft EIS of December 1996 addressing the Army's land acquisition project for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin fully replaces the 1996 EIS. All alternatives considered in the earlier EIS are no longer under consideration. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative VI), are considered in this supplement. The preferred alternative (Alternative I) would result in the acquisition of 150,510 acres. This would provide for the reintroduction of the UTM 90 area into mechanized training use. the eastern portion of this alternative includes the southern portion of the Avawatz Mountains and runs parallel, northeast to southwest, along the utilities rights-of-way of the Bureau of Land Management's Utility Planning Corridor D. The southern portion of the area consists of the UTM 90 area. The western portion of the area includes a segment of the Paradise Mountains and two of the Superior lakes. Under Alternative I, a three-mile transit route through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goldstone Complex would be improve for use by Fort Irwin personnel to allow access to Superior Valley. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition of additional maneuverable land would provide an expanded battle-space environment to enable the NTC to conduct its mission of training brigade-sized units in accordance with present and future joint and combined-arms operations doctrines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any ecological community occurring in terrain with a slope of less than 20 percent would be adversely affected. Soil and vegetation would be disturbed due to intensive use of tracked and wheeled vehicles, landing pads and similar facilities, and trenching for tank and gun emplacement. the soils on up to 141,890 acres of land would be adversely affected due to the crushing of rock outcrops, the disturbance of desert pavement, the compaction of upper soil layers, and wind and water erosion. There would be significant large-scale losses of vegetation in concentrated activity areas that are slow to recover. Large areas of Mojave creosote scrub would be lost, as would habitat for a population of desert tortoise and for Lane Mountain milk vetch, a federally protected plant species. Numerous archaeological and paleontological sites could be disturbed during training maneuvers. Maneuvers would require elimination of public access to the area for recreation and other purposes, including patent mining. One residence would be displace, and maneuvers could conflict with the mission of the Goldstone Complex.` LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Public Law 106-554, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 96-0528D, Volume 20, Number 6. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 04-0368D, Volume 28, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 060012, Supplemental EIS-621 pages, Supplement--30 pages, CD-ROM, January 12, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Defense Programs
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Military Facilities (Army)
KW  - Military Operations (Army)
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - California
KW  - Death Valley National Park
KW  - National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites
KW  - Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding
KW  - Public Law 106-554, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16353453?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.title=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.+TO+THE+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 12, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - EOG RESOURCES INC. CHAPITA WELLS-STAGECOACH AREA NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH.
AN  - 16345675; 11880
AB  - PURPOSE: The development of natural gas resources in the Chapita Wells-Stagecoach Area (CWSA) of Unitah County, Utah is proposed by EOG Resources, Inc. The 31,872-acre CWSA lies in an existing gas-producing region in lands owned by the federal government, the state, the Northern Ute Indian Tribe, and private parties. the CWSA contains the Capita Wells Unit and the Stagecoach Unit in addition to non-unitized lands. As of March 1, 2004, the CWSA contained 325 gas-producing wells, approximately 121 miles of road, and 115 miles of pipeline. An additional 100 wells, 12 miles of access road, and 18.5 miles of pipeline, approved in 1999, remain to be drilled and/or constructed in the project area. Fifty-five of these previously approved wells would be drilled at new locations and 45 are expected to be twins (i.e., drilled at existing well locations). There are currently no oil wells or produced water disposal wells in the CWSA. EOG proposes to drill up to 627 new gas wells to the Green River, Wasatch, Mesaverde, Mancos "B", and, possibly, other formations. Of the planned wells, 473 would be drilled at new locations and 154 would be twins, representing 25 percent of the total new wells that would be drilled. The final location of well pads, roads, and pipelines would be determined through future site-specific analyses; this EIS is not a decision document. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Gas resource development would help provide for the increasing demand for natural gas throughout the nation and reduce the country's dependence on foreign sources of energy. the completion of the 627 wells and ancillary facilities over a two-year period would create $11.3 million in employment income. The operational phase of the project would generate $17.3 million over the 40-year project life. Total production revenues over the project life would amount to $2.4 billion. In addition, the project would generate $12,245 per well in annual federal mine royalties, for a total of $6.7 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground disturbance and erosion, affecting vegetation and soil over 1,735 acres, would increase sedimentation and turbidity in surface water flows. Soil losses of 4,015 tons per year would be expected. Up to 103 acre-feet per year could be lost from the Green and White rivers due to project-related water withdrawal, possibly degrading natural values provided by the associated floodplains. Developments would affect 714 acres of critical, year-long antelope habitat and 71 acres of mule deer habitat. Approximately 154 animal unit months would be lost over the long-term. Paleontological sites could be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060011, 302 pages, January 12, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 05-59
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Erosion
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Roads
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16345675?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EOG+RESOURCES+INC.+CHAPITA+WELLS-STAGECOACH+AREA+NATURAL+GAS+DEVELOPMENT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=EOG+RESOURCES+INC.+CHAPITA+WELLS-STAGECOACH+AREA+NATURAL+GAS+DEVELOPMENT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 12, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING.
AN  - 756827090; 11875-060005_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The intensification of development of natural gas resources within 30,500 acres of The Jonah Field in Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. The project area is generally located 32 miles southeast of Pinedale and 28 miles northwest of Farson in The southeastern portion of The county. The intensification project would involve infill drilling among existing wells. Within The project area boundary there are currently 533 wells permitted or committed to from 497 well pads. Wells would be expected to produce for approximately 40 years; The life of The project, from The first well drilled to The last well plugged and abandoned and The associated habitat function restored, is estimated at 110 years. Ten alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in The draft EIS of February 2005. The proposed action, which continues to be The proposed action, though not The preferred Alternative, in this final EIS, would involve drilling, completing, and operating up to 3,100 additional wells on up to 16,200 acres of land. The new wells would enable The applicants (Encana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc., BP American Production Company, and other natural gas operators) to develop natural gas and condensate from The Lane and other formations at depths of 11,000 feet. Project facilities would include roads, pipelines, and other ancillary facilities in addition to the wells. Standard field development and production procedures would be followed. Above a certain level of authorized surface disturbance, The applicants would establish a fund to finance compensatory off-site mitigation for impacts that could not be fully mitigated on-site. Other methods of compensatory mitigation are under consideration. One action alternative would result in removal of some standard restrictions and mitigation measures to minimize The amount of directional drilling required, to remove some wildlife surface protections, and to facilitate gas recovery. Another alternative would limit drilling to The currently authorized 497 well pads. Two other alternatives vary The number of wells. The three alternatives vary with respect to well pad density. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would combine several of The alternatives and apply additional mitigation and outcome- or performance-based field management objectives. An August 2005 draft supplement to The draft EIS provides additional air quality analysis quantifying project-specific and cumulative air quality impacts from additional configurations of The proposed Jonah Infill Drilling Project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The expanded project would produce significant amounts of natural gas, increasing The nation's domestic supply and thereby reducing dependence on foreign sources of fuel. The intensification of drilling in The area would enhance economic conditions in Pinedale, Big Piney/Marbleton, and Boulder in Sublette County; La Barge in Lincoln County; and Eden/Farson and Rock Springs in Sweetwater County. Extensive existing and new employment would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in a maximum surface disturbance on 14,030 acres at any one time and 20,334 acres over The life of The project. Minimum well pad disturbance density would amount to 64 well pads per 640-acre section. Bottomhole well density would range from one bottomhole every five acres for one every 40 acres. Approximately 250 wells would be drilled annually. The topography of The affected area would be significantly altered. Significant impacts to visibility would be expected due to The release of atmospheric pollutants. Most of The 17 soil map units in The area would suffer from construction and reclamation limitations, resulting in loss of soil productivity and alteration of sand dunes. The additional wells would affect habitat for endangered pronghorn antelope, greater sage grouse, raptors, and several federally listed sensitive species, with particularly extreme impacts affecting sagebrush obligates. Plant cover impacts would vary across The three dominant sagebrush vegetation types present within The area, with significant impacts expected in many areas. The drilling area would not be available for historic uses, including livestock grazing, wildlife uses, and recreation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For The abstracts of the draft EIS and The draft supplemental EIS, see 05-0306D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 05-0501D, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 060005, 266 pages, January 6, 2006
PY  - 2006
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-06/006+1310
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Dunes
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827090?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JONAH+INFILL+DRILLING+PROJECT%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=JONAH+INFILL+DRILLING+PROJECT%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of The Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING.
AN  - 16353407; 11875
AB  - PURPOSE: The intensification of development of natural gas resources within 30,500 acres of The Jonah Field in Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. The project area is generally located 32 miles southeast of Pinedale and 28 miles northwest of Farson in The southeastern portion of The county. The intensification project would involve infill drilling among existing wells. Within The project area boundary there are currently 533 wells permitted or committed to from 497 well pads. Wells would be expected to produce for approximately 40 years; The life of The project, from The first well drilled to The last well plugged and abandoned and The associated habitat function restored, is estimated at 110 years. Ten alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in The draft EIS of February 2005. The proposed action, which continues to be The proposed action, though not The preferred Alternative, in this final EIS, would involve drilling, completing, and operating up to 3,100 additional wells on up to 16,200 acres of land. The new wells would enable The applicants (Encana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc., BP American Production Company, and other natural gas operators) to develop natural gas and condensate from The Lane and other formations at depths of 11,000 feet. Project facilities would include roads, pipelines, and other ancillary facilities in addition to the wells. Standard field development and production procedures would be followed. Above a certain level of authorized surface disturbance, The applicants would establish a fund to finance compensatory off-site mitigation for impacts that could not be fully mitigated on-site. Other methods of compensatory mitigation are under consideration. One action alternative would result in removal of some standard restrictions and mitigation measures to minimize The amount of directional drilling required, to remove some wildlife surface protections, and to facilitate gas recovery. Another alternative would limit drilling to The currently authorized 497 well pads. Two other alternatives vary The number of wells. The three alternatives vary with respect to well pad density. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would combine several of The alternatives and apply additional mitigation and outcome- or performance-based field management objectives. An August 2005 draft supplement to The draft EIS provides additional air quality analysis quantifying project-specific and cumulative air quality impacts from additional configurations of The proposed Jonah Infill Drilling Project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The expanded project would produce significant amounts of natural gas, increasing The nation's domestic supply and thereby reducing dependence on foreign sources of fuel. The intensification of drilling in The area would enhance economic conditions in Pinedale, Big Piney/Marbleton, and Boulder in Sublette County; La Barge in Lincoln County; and Eden/Farson and Rock Springs in Sweetwater County. Extensive existing and new employment would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in a maximum surface disturbance on 14,030 acres at any one time and 20,334 acres over The life of The project. Minimum well pad disturbance density would amount to 64 well pads per 640-acre section. Bottomhole well density would range from one bottomhole every five acres for one every 40 acres. Approximately 250 wells would be drilled annually. The topography of The affected area would be significantly altered. Significant impacts to visibility would be expected due to The release of atmospheric pollutants. Most of The 17 soil map units in The area would suffer from construction and reclamation limitations, resulting in loss of soil productivity and alteration of sand dunes. The additional wells would affect habitat for endangered pronghorn antelope, greater sage grouse, raptors, and several federally listed sensitive species, with particularly extreme impacts affecting sagebrush obligates. Plant cover impacts would vary across The three dominant sagebrush vegetation types present within The area, with significant impacts expected in many areas. The drilling area would not be available for historic uses, including livestock grazing, wildlife uses, and recreation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For The abstracts of the draft EIS and The draft supplemental EIS, see 05-0306D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 05-0501D, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 060005, 266 pages, January 6, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-06/006+1310
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Dunes
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Roads
KW  - Soils
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16353407?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JONAH+INFILL+DRILLING+PROJECT%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=JONAH+INFILL+DRILLING+PROJECT%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of The Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COEUR D'ALENE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, IDAHO (ERATA ATTACHMENT).
AN  - 16358080; 11954
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the resource management plan for the land and resources administered by the Coeur d'Alene Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of Benewah, Bonner, Boundary, Kootenai, and Shoshone counties of northern Idaho is proposed. The planning area, which encompasses 5.1 million acres within, which the BLM administers 96,770 acres, is bordered on the west by the Washington state line, on the north by the Canadian border, on the east by the Montana state line, and on the south by Latah and Clearwater counties. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to opportunities for motorized and nonmotorized recreation; protection of resources wile providing forest products and restoring forest health; protection of people and property from wildfire; adjustment of land ownership; control of invasive plant species and noxious weeds; and restoration of healthy watersheds and riparian habitat. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in the draft EIS of January 2006. Alternative B would emphasize commodity production and utility corridor development. Alternative C would implement minimal active management prescriptions, emphasizing preservation of natural and cultural resources. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would attempt to balance management planning issues, including commodity and non-commodity goals, to achieve statutory requirements and policy goals. Key components of Alternative D would include management of motorized recreation through closure of an additional 469 acres, primarily within areas affected by hazardous materials sites, and limiting travel within the remaining 99.7 percent of BLM lands to designated roads and trails; management of forest vegetation focusing on areas where natural disturbance has occurred, yielding a probable sale of 4.4 million board-feet per year; incorporation of conservation measures from statewide BLM planning documents for federally protected plant and animal species; creation of three new areas of critical environmental concern/research natural areas (357 additional acres); recommendation that four eligible stream segments be included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; deferral of wild and scenic status for the remaining eligible stream segment until the Idaho national Panhandle National Forests makes a determination for adjacent segments; emphasizing land ownership adjustments that promote retention and acquisition of lands with both commodity and non-commodity resource values and lands that increase public access, provide recreational values, or consolidate federal holdings; management of wild land fire to protect people, property, and both commodity and non=-commodity resources; use of fire for resource benefits within all areas outside the wild land-urban interface; and protection of fish and riparian habitat and watersheds through the provisions of the Coeur d'Alene Native Fish Strategy. This attachment to the draft EIS provides errata with respect to the descriptions of Alternatives C and D. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would respond to changing ecological, socioeconomic, institutional, and regulatory conditions that have occurred since the approval of the Emerald Empire Management Framework Plan of 1981 and the various amendments and decisions that have been approved since plan approval. The revised pan would provide a single, comprehensive land use plan that would guide management of public lands and interests administered by the BLM field office. The plan would provide objectives, land use allocations, and management direction to maintain, improve, or restore resource conditions and to provide for the economic needs of local communities over the long-term NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of mineral resources would result in the disturbance of land and cultural resource sites and geological structures and degrade visual aesthetics. Unauthorized off-road vehicle travel would scar lands and damage vegetation and could destroy surface cultural and paleontological resources. Vegetation treatments could cause displacement of wildlife, decreases in forage availability and quality. Changes in recreational patterns could cause damage to natural and cultural resources and give rise to conflicts between users. Restriction of recreationists, livestock operators, and other users of area resources could lessen the availability and usefulness of resources for beneficial exploitation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060002, Errata--1 page, January 5, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: ID-410-2005-EIS-1059
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Coeur d'Alene Resource Management Area
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16358080?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COEUR+D%27ALENE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IDAHO+%28ERATA+ATTACHMENT%29.&rft.title=COEUR+D%27ALENE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IDAHO+%28ERATA+ATTACHMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-10-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 5, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COEUR D'ALENE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, IDAHO.
AN  - 16355913; 11872
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of The resource management plan for The land and resources administered by The Coeur d'Alene Office of The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of Benewah, Bonner, Boundary, Kootenai, and Shoshone counties of northern Idaho is proposed. The planning area, which encompasses 5.1 million acres within which The BLM administers 96,770 acres, is bordered on The west by The Washington state line, on The north by The Canadian border, on The east by The Montana state line, and on The south by Latah and Clearwater counties. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to opportunities for motorized and non-motorized recreation; protection of resources wile providing forest products and restoring forest health; protection of people and property from wildfire; adjustment of land ownership; control of invasive plant species and noxious weeds; and restoration of healthy watersheds and riparian habitat. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate The existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize commodity production and utility corridor development. Alternative C would implement minimal active management prescriptions, emphasizing preservation of natural and cultural resources. Alternative D, which is The preferred Alternative, would attempt to balance management planning issues, including commodity and non-commodity goals, to achieve statutory requirements and policy goals. Key components of Alternative D would include management of motorized recreation through closure of an additional 469 acres, primarily within areas affected by hazardous materials sites, and limiting travel within The remaining 99.7 percent of BLM lands to designated roads and trails; management of forest vegetation focusing on areas where natural disturbance has occurred, yielding a probable sale of 4.4 million board-feet per year; incorporation of conservation measures from statewide BLM planning documents for federally protected plant and animal species; creation of three new areas of critical environmental concern/research natural areas (357 additional acres); recommendation that four eligible stream segments be included in The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; deferral of wild and scenic status for The remaining eligible stream segment until The Idaho national Panhandle National Forests makes a determination for adjacent segments; emphasizing land ownership adjustments that promote retention and acquisition of lands with both commodity and non-commodity resource values and lands that increase public access, provide recreational values, or consolidate federal holdings; management of wildland fire to protect people, property, and both commodity and non=-commodity resources; use of fire for resource benefits within all areas outside The wildland-urban interface; and protection of fish and riparian habitat and watersheds through The provisions of The Coeur d'Alene Native Fish Strategy. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would respond to changing ecological, socioeconomic, institutional, and regulatory conditions that have occurred since The approval of The Emerald Empire Management Framework Plan of 1981 and The various amendments and decisions that have been approved since plan approval. The revised pan would provide a single, comprehensive land use plan that would guide management of public lands and interests administered by the BLM field office. The plan would provide objectives, land use allocations, and management direction to maintain, improve, or restore resource conditions and to provide for The economic needs of local communities over The long-term NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of mineral Resources would result in The disturbance of land and cultural resource sites and geological structures and degrade visual aesthetics. Unauthorized off-road vehicle travel would scar lands and damage vegetation and could destroy surface cultural and paleontological resources. Vegetation treatments could cause displacement of wildlife, decreases in forage availability and quality. Changes in recreational patterns could cause damage to natural and cultural resources and give rise to conflicts between users. Restriction of recreationists, livestock operators, and other users of area resources could lessen The availability and usefulness of resources for beneficial exploitation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 060002, Volume I--347 pages, January 5, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: ID-410-2005-EIS-1059
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Roads
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Coeur d'Alene Resource Management Area
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16355913?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COEUR+D%27ALENE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=COEUR+D%27ALENE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of The Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 5, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Total magnetic field of parts of southern National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, northwest Alaska
AN  - 51509875; 2007-006147
JF  - Geophysical Report - Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys
AU  - Burns, L E
Y1  - 2006
PY  - 2006
DA  - 2006
EP  - 4 sheets
PB  - Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Fairbanks, AK
KW  - Scale: 1:63,360
KW  - Type: geophysical survey maps
KW  - United States
KW  - geophysical surveys
KW  - total-field methods
KW  - geophysical methods
KW  - magnetic methods
KW  - magnetic anomalies
KW  - magnetic field
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - maps
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - surveys
KW  - geophysical survey maps
KW  - Alaska
KW  - 20:Applied geophysics
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51509875?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Geophysical+Report+-+Alaska+Division+of+Geological+%26+Geophysical+Surveys&rft.atitle=Total+magnetic+field+of+parts+of+southern+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%2C+northwest+Alaska&rft.au=Burns%2C+L+E&rft.aulast=Burns&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2006-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geophysical+Report+-+Alaska+Division+of+Geological+%26+Geophysical+Surveys&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://wwwdggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=citation&ID=14503 http://www.dggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=series&abbrevID=200
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2007-01-01
N1  - PubXState - AK
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
N1  - CODEN - #06702
ER  - 



TY  - JOUR
T1  - Line, grid, and vector data and plot files for the airborne geophysical survey data of parts of the southern National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, northwest Alaska
AN  - 51509329; 2007-006145
JF  - Geophysical Report - Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys
AU  - Burns, L E
Y1  - 2006
PY  - 2006
DA  - 2006
EP  - 3 discs
PB  - Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Fairbanks, AK
KW  - United States
KW  - digital data
KW  - geophysical surveys
KW  - spatial data
KW  - geophysical methods
KW  - electrical methods
KW  - magnetic methods
KW  - magnetic anomalies
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - electrical anomalies
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - airborne methods
KW  - 20:Applied geophysics
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51509329?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Burns%2C+L+E&rft.aulast=Burns&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2006-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Line%2C+grid%2C+and+vector+data+and+plot+files+for+the+airborne+geophysical+survey+data+of+parts+of+the+southern+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%2C+northwest+Alaska&rft.title=Line%2C+grid%2C+and+vector+data+and+plot+files+for+the+airborne+geophysical+survey+data+of+parts+of+the+southern+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%2C+northwest+Alaska&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://wwwdggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=citation&ID=14501 http://www.dggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=series&abbrevID=200
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2007-01-01
N1  - PubXState - AK
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
N1  - CODEN - #06702
N1  - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - airborne methods; Alaska; digital data; electrical anomalies; electrical methods; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; magnetic anomalies; magnetic methods; National Petroleum Reserve Alaska; Northern Alaska; spatial data; surveys; United States
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - 7200 Hz coplanar resistivity of parts of southern National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
AN  - 51509188; 2007-006148
JF  - Geophysical Report - Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys
AU  - Burns, L E
Y1  - 2006
PY  - 2006
DA  - 2006
EP  - 4 sheets
PB  - Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Fairbanks, AK
KW  - Scale: 1:63,360
KW  - Type: geophysical survey maps
KW  - United States
KW  - geophysical surveys
KW  - geophysical methods
KW  - electrical methods
KW  - resistivity
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - electrical anomalies
KW  - maps
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - surveys
KW  - geophysical survey maps
KW  - Alaska
KW  - 20:Applied geophysics
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51509188?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Geophysical+Report+-+Alaska+Division+of+Geological+%26+Geophysical+Surveys&rft.atitle=7200+Hz+coplanar+resistivity+of+parts+of+southern+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska&rft.au=Burns%2C+L+E&rft.aulast=Burns&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2006-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geophysical+Report+-+Alaska+Division+of+Geological+%26+Geophysical+Surveys&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://wwwdggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=citation&ID=14504 http://www.dggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=series&abbrevID=200
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2007-01-01
N1  - PubXState - AK
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
N1  - CODEN - #06702
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Total magnetic field and detailed electromagnetic anomalies of parts of southern National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, northwest Alaska, parts of Howard Pass B-2 Quadrangle
AN  - 51506826; 2007-007977
JF  - Geophysical Report - Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys
AU  - Burns, L E
Y1  - 2006
PY  - 2006
DA  - 2006
EP  - 1 sheet
PB  - Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Fairbanks, AK
KW  - Scale: 1:31,680
KW  - Type: geophysical survey map
KW  - United States
KW  - geophysical surveys
KW  - total-field methods
KW  - geophysical methods
KW  - electrical methods
KW  - magnetic methods
KW  - magnetic anomalies
KW  - magnetic field
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - Howard Pass Quadrangle
KW  - electrical anomalies
KW  - maps
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - electromagnetic methods
KW  - surveys
KW  - geophysical survey maps
KW  - Alaska
KW  - 20:Applied geophysics
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51506826?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Geophysical+Report+-+Alaska+Division+of+Geological+%26+Geophysical+Surveys&rft.atitle=Total+magnetic+field+and+detailed+electromagnetic+anomalies+of+parts+of+southern+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%2C+northwest+Alaska%2C+parts+of+Howard+Pass+B-2+Quadrangle&rft.au=Burns%2C+L+E&rft.aulast=Burns&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2006-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geophysical+Report+-+Alaska+Division+of+Geological+%26+Geophysical+Surveys&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://wwwdggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=citation&ID=14520 http://www.dggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=series&abbrevID=200
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2007-01-01
N1  - PubXState - AK
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
N1  - CODEN - #06702
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Total magnetic field and detailed electromagnetic anomalies of parts of southern National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, northwest Alaska, parts of Howard Pass B-4 Quadrangle
AN  - 51505627; 2007-007975
JF  - Geophysical Report - Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys
AU  - Burns, L E
Y1  - 2006
PY  - 2006
DA  - 2006
EP  - 1 sheet
PB  - Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Fairbanks, AK
KW  - Scale: 1:31,680
KW  - Type: geophysical survey maps
KW  - United States
KW  - geophysical surveys
KW  - total-field methods
KW  - geophysical methods
KW  - electrical methods
KW  - magnetic methods
KW  - magnetic anomalies
KW  - magnetic field
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - Howard Pass Quadrangle
KW  - electrical anomalies
KW  - maps
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - electromagnetic methods
KW  - surveys
KW  - geophysical survey maps
KW  - Alaska
KW  - 20:Applied geophysics
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51505627?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Geophysical+Report+-+Alaska+Division+of+Geological+%26+Geophysical+Surveys&rft.atitle=Total+magnetic+field+and+detailed+electromagnetic+anomalies+of+parts+of+southern+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%2C+northwest+Alaska%2C+parts+of+Howard+Pass+B-4+Quadrangle&rft.au=Burns%2C+L+E&rft.aulast=Burns&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2006-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geophysical+Report+-+Alaska+Division+of+Geological+%26+Geophysical+Surveys&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://wwwdggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=citation&ID=14518 http://www.dggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=series&abbrevID=200
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2007-01-01
N1  - PubXState - AK
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
N1  - CODEN - #06702
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - 900 Hz coplanar resistivity of parts of southern National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, northwest Alaska
AN  - 51505606; 2007-007967
JF  - Geophysical Report - Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys
AU  - Burns, L E
Y1  - 2006
PY  - 2006
DA  - 2006
EP  - 4 sheets
PB  - Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Fairbanks, AK
KW  - Scale: 1:63,360
KW  - Type: geophysical survey maps
KW  - United States
KW  - geophysical surveys
KW  - geophysical methods
KW  - electrical methods
KW  - resistivity
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - electrical anomalies
KW  - maps
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - surveys
KW  - geophysical survey maps
KW  - Alaska
KW  - 20:Applied geophysics
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51505606?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Geophysical+Report+-+Alaska+Division+of+Geological+%26+Geophysical+Surveys&rft.atitle=900+Hz+coplanar+resistivity+of+parts+of+southern+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%2C+northwest+Alaska&rft.au=Burns%2C+L+E&rft.aulast=Burns&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2006-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geophysical+Report+-+Alaska+Division+of+Geological+%26+Geophysical+Surveys&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://wwwdggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=citation&ID=14507 http://www.dggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=series&abbrevID=200
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2007-01-01
N1  - PubXState - AK
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
N1  - CODEN - #06702
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Total magnetic field and detailed electromagnetic anomalies of parts of southern National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, northwest Alaska, parts of Howard Pass B-5 and C-5 Quadrangles
AN  - 51504263; 2007-007974
JF  - Geophysical Report - Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys
AU  - Burns, L E
Y1  - 2006
PY  - 2006
DA  - 2006
EP  - 1 sheet
PB  - Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Fairbanks, AK
KW  - Scale: 1:31,680
KW  - Type: geophysical survey map
KW  - United States
KW  - geophysical surveys
KW  - total-field methods
KW  - geophysical methods
KW  - electrical methods
KW  - magnetic methods
KW  - magnetic anomalies
KW  - magnetic field
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - Howard Pass Quadrangle
KW  - electrical anomalies
KW  - maps
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - electromagnetic methods
KW  - surveys
KW  - geophysical survey maps
KW  - Alaska
KW  - 20:Applied geophysics
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51504263?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Geophysical+Report+-+Alaska+Division+of+Geological+%26+Geophysical+Surveys&rft.atitle=Total+magnetic+field+and+detailed+electromagnetic+anomalies+of+parts+of+southern+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%2C+northwest+Alaska%2C+parts+of+Howard+Pass+B-5+and+C-5+Quadrangles&rft.au=Burns%2C+L+E&rft.aulast=Burns&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2006-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geophysical+Report+-+Alaska+Division+of+Geological+%26+Geophysical+Surveys&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://wwwdggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=citation&ID=14517 http://www.dggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=series&abbrevID=200
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2007-01-01
N1  - PubXState - AK
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
N1  - CODEN - #06702
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Total magnetic field and detailed electromagnetic anomalies of parts of southern National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, northwest Alaska, parts of Misheguk Mountain C-1, C-2, D-1, and D-2 Quadrangles
AN  - 51504235; 2007-007968
JF  - Geophysical Report - Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys
AU  - Burns, L E
Y1  - 2006
PY  - 2006
DA  - 2006
EP  - 1 sheet
PB  - Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Fairbanks, AK
KW  - Scale: 1:31,680
KW  - Type: geophysical survey map
KW  - United States
KW  - geophysical surveys
KW  - total-field methods
KW  - geophysical methods
KW  - electrical methods
KW  - magnetic methods
KW  - magnetic anomalies
KW  - Misheguk Mountain Quadrangle
KW  - magnetic field
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - electrical anomalies
KW  - maps
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - electromagnetic methods
KW  - surveys
KW  - geophysical survey maps
KW  - Alaska
KW  - 20:Applied geophysics
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51504235?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Geophysical+Report+-+Alaska+Division+of+Geological+%26+Geophysical+Surveys&rft.atitle=Total+magnetic+field+and+detailed+electromagnetic+anomalies+of+parts+of+southern+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%2C+northwest+Alaska%2C+parts+of+Misheguk+Mountain+C-1%2C+C-2%2C+D-1%2C+and+D-2+Quadrangles&rft.au=Burns%2C+L+E&rft.aulast=Burns&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2006-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geophysical+Report+-+Alaska+Division+of+Geological+%26+Geophysical+Surveys&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://wwwdggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=citation&ID=14511 http://www.dggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=series&abbrevID=200
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2007-01-01
N1  - PubXState - AK
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
N1  - CODEN - #06702
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Total magnetic field and detailed electromagnetic anomalies of parts of southern National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, northwest Alaska, parts of Howard Pass B-1 Quadrangle
AN  - 51504211; 2007-007978
JF  - Geophysical Report - Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys
AU  - Burns, L E
Y1  - 2006
PY  - 2006
DA  - 2006
EP  - 1 sheet
PB  - Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Fairbanks, AK
KW  - Scale: 1:31,680
KW  - Type: geophysical survey map
KW  - United States
KW  - geophysical surveys
KW  - total-field methods
KW  - geophysical methods
KW  - electrical methods
KW  - magnetic methods
KW  - magnetic anomalies
KW  - magnetic field
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - Howard Pass Quadrangle
KW  - electrical anomalies
KW  - maps
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - electromagnetic methods
KW  - surveys
KW  - geophysical survey maps
KW  - Alaska
KW  - 20:Applied geophysics
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51504211?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Geophysical+Report+-+Alaska+Division+of+Geological+%26+Geophysical+Surveys&rft.atitle=Total+magnetic+field+and+detailed+electromagnetic+anomalies+of+parts+of+southern+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%2C+northwest+Alaska%2C+parts+of+Howard+Pass+B-1+Quadrangle&rft.au=Burns%2C+L+E&rft.aulast=Burns&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2006-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geophysical+Report+-+Alaska+Division+of+Geological+%26+Geophysical+Surveys&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://wwwdggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=citation&ID=14521 http://www.dggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=series&abbrevID=200
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2007-01-01
N1  - PubXState - AK
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
N1  - CODEN - #06702
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - 56,000 Hz coplanar resistivity of parts of southern National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, northwest Alaska
AN  - 51504040; 2007-007979
JF  - Geophysical Report - Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys
AU  - Burns, L E
Y1  - 2006
PY  - 2006
DA  - 2006
EP  - 4 sheets
PB  - Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Fairbanks, AK
KW  - Scale: 1:63,360
KW  - Type: geophysical survey maps
KW  - United States
KW  - geophysical surveys
KW  - geophysical methods
KW  - electrical methods
KW  - resistivity
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - electrical anomalies
KW  - maps
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - surveys
KW  - geophysical survey maps
KW  - Alaska
KW  - 20:Applied geophysics
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51504040?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Geophysical+Report+-+Alaska+Division+of+Geological+%26+Geophysical+Surveys&rft.atitle=56%2C000+Hz+coplanar+resistivity+of+parts+of+southern+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%2C+northwest+Alaska&rft.au=Burns%2C+L+E&rft.aulast=Burns&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2006-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geophysical+Report+-+Alaska+Division+of+Geological+%26+Geophysical+Surveys&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://wwwdggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=citation&ID=14508 http://www.dggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=series&abbrevID=200
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2007-01-01
N1  - PubXState - AK
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
N1  - CODEN - #06702
ER  - 



TY  - GEN
T1  - Total magnetic field and detailed electromagnetic anomalies of parts of southern National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, northwest Alaska, parts of Howard Pass C-3 Quadrangle
AN  - 51503933; 2007-007971
JF  - Geophysical Report - Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys
AU  - Burns, L E
Y1  - 2006
PY  - 2006
DA  - 2006
EP  - 1 sheet
PB  - Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Fairbanks, AK
KW  - Scale: 1:31,680
KW  - Type: geophysical survey map
KW  - United States
KW  - geophysical surveys
KW  - total-field methods
KW  - geophysical methods
KW  - electrical methods
KW  - magnetic methods
KW  - magnetic anomalies
KW  - magnetic field
KW  - National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
KW  - electrical anomalies
KW  - maps
KW  - Northern Alaska
KW  - electromagnetic methods
KW  - surveys
KW  - geophysical survey maps
KW  - Alaska
KW  - 20:Applied geophysics
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51503933?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Geophysical+Report+-+Alaska+Division+of+Geological+%26+Geophysical+Surveys&rft.atitle=Total+magnetic+field+and+detailed+electromagnetic+anomalies+of+parts+of+southern+National+Petroleum+Reserve-Alaska%2C+northwest+Alaska%2C+parts+of+Howard+Pass+C-3+Quadrangle&rft.au=Burns%2C+L+E&rft.aulast=Burns&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2006-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geophysical+Report+-+Alaska+Division+of+Geological+%26+Geophysical+Surveys&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
L2  - http://wwwdggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=citation&ID=14514 http://www.dggs.dnr.state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=series&abbrevID=200
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2007-01-01
N1  - PubXState - AK
N1  - Last updated - 2012-06-07
N1  - CODEN - #06702
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN WATER OPERATIONS REVIEW, COLORADO AND NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 36342238; 12869
AB  - PURPOSE: The adoption of an integrated plan for water operations in the upper Rio Grande basin in Colorado and New Mexico is proposed. The basin encompasses the Rio Grande drainage from its headwaters in Colorado through New Mexico to just above Fort Quitman, Texas. Several distinct federal and state agencies, with differing missions and methods, are responsible for regulating activities in the basin. Several inter- and intra-state agreements mandate the delivery of certain volumes of water between federal, state, local, and tribal entities. The portion of the basin designated as the upper Rio Grande is subject to the Rio Grande Compact of 1938. The climate of the region is variable such that several years of above-average precipitation can be followed by several years of drought. Thus, the volume of available water to comply with agreements from year to year is similarly variable. As a result, any water management plan for the area needs to anticipate and proactively address wide-ranging hydrologic conditions. Ten water operations facilities in the basin can be manipulated individually or in concert to address various situations. The integrated plan proposed here would provide a means of integrating the sometimes disparate missions and activities of the agencies allocating and administering the basin's water resources. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft and final EISs of January 2006 and April 2007, respectively. Each alternative addresses actions at nine basin water operations facilities, including six operated by the Bureau of Reclamation and three operated by the Army Corps of Engineers. These facilities include the Closed Basin Project, Platoto Dam, Heron Dam, El Vado Dam, Abiquiu Dam, Cochiti Dam, Jemez Canyon Dam, Low-Flow Conveyance Channel to Elephant Butte Reservoir, and Elephant Butte Dam. The preferred alternative (Alternative E-3) would require water contractors to take delivery of their annual allotment by December 31, unless a waiver for delivery is authorized by September 30, the existing date for waiver authorization being April 30; allow water supply storage of up to 180,000 at the Abiquiu Dam, which currently provides only flood control storage; increase the authorized capacity of the Cochiti Channel from 7,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 10,000 cfs; use protocol coordination to arrange allocation for flood control storage at the Elephant Butte and Caballo dams; and establish basin-wide coordination via a formal communications system as opposed via information communication. The Abiquiu Channel capacity would remain at 7,000 cfs, and diversions to the Low-Flow Conveyance Channel associated with Elephant Butte Dam to aid the delivery of Compact water would continue to be limited to 2,000 cfs. The technical appendices, which are provided and covered here for the first time, address various affected environmental resources and processes as well as the decision support process and data quality issues. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An integrated plan would provide for storage and delivery of water for agricultural, domestic, municipal and industrial, and environmental uses, assist authorities in meeting downstream water delivery obligations mandated by the Rio Grande Compact, provide for flood protection and sediment control, ad comply with existing laws, contractual obligations, and international treaty requirements vis-a-vis Mexico. Systems operation flexibility would be enhanced significantly, improving water deliveries for agricultural, recreational, and hydropower uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plan execution would result in slight to moderate decreases in reservoir and riparian resources, slight to moderate impacts on threatened and endangered species habitat. Impacts could disproportionately affect local Native American populations. The primary impacts related to water quality would consist of decreased dissolved oxygen levels in Elephant Butte and Caballo reservoirs. Excessive flood flows allowed in the San Acacia Section could damage culturally relevant archaeological sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) and Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat. 1107). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0296D, Volume 30, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 060023, Draft EIS Technical Appendices--922 pages and maps, January 19, 2006
PY  - 2006
KW  - Water
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Dams
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Flood Control
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrology
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - International Programs
KW  - Irrigation
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Colorado
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Rio Grande
KW  - Reclamation Project Act of 1939, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342238?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2006-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+RIO+GRANDE+BASIN+WATER+OPERATIONS+REVIEW%2C+COLORADO+AND+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=UPPER+RIO+GRANDE+BASIN+WATER+OPERATIONS+REVIEW%2C+COLORADO+AND+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque, New Mexico; ARMY
N1  - Date revised - 2008-04-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 19, 2006
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - Soil survey of Yosemite National Park, California
AN  - 1529791983; 2014-033481
JF  - Soil survey of Yosemite National Park, California
AU  - Taskey, Ronald D
AU  - Arroues, Kerry D
Y1  - 2006
PY  - 2006
DA  - 2006
SP  - 982
KW  - United States
KW  - soils
KW  - Sierra Nevada
KW  - Central California
KW  - Yosemite Valley
KW  - mapping
KW  - California
KW  - Mariposa County California
KW  - Madera County California
KW  - Tuolumne County California
KW  - soil surveys
KW  - surveys
KW  - Yosemite National Park
KW  - 25:Soils
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1529791983?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Taskey%2C+Ronald+D%3BArroues%2C+Kerry+D&rft.aulast=Taskey&rft.aufirst=Ronald&rft.date=2006-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Soil+survey+of+Yosemite+National+Park%2C+California&rft.title=Soil+survey+of+Yosemite+National+Park%2C+California&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - GeoRef
N1  - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute.
N1  - Date revised - 2014-01-01
N1  - Number of references - 28
N1  - Availability - U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
N1  - Document feature - illus. incl. 5 plates, 17 tables, sketch maps
N1  - SuppNotes - Includes glossary; includes appendices; Prepared in cooperation with Yosemite National Park; Tuolumne County, Mariposa County, and Coarsegold Resource Conservation Districts; Central Sierra Resource Conservation and Development; and Yosemite/Sequoia Resource Conservation and Development; and the Regents of the University of California (Agricultural Experiment Station)
N1  - Last updated - 2014-09-18
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RED RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, MINNESOTA AND NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - RED RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, MINNESOTA AND NORTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 36388370; 11869-050554_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a bulk water supply project to meet the long-term water needs of the Red River Valley in North Dakota and Minnesota are proposed. Most of the population of the Red River Valley, including the residents of Fargo and Grand Forks, North Dakota and Moorhead and East Grand Forks, Minnesota rely on the Red River of the North and its tributaries as primary or sole sources of water. A climate study to investigate the frequency of droughts in the Red River Basin concluded that the valley would probably experience an extreme drought in the next 50 years. It is estimated at the present water supplies of the valley would fall short of meeting the current annual water demand by approximately 16 percent during a severe drought. Water users in the valley would experience a water supply deficit of 46 percent during the month of February. If population growth trends continue in the valley, the projected water supply shortages would become even greater in the future. The proposed action would include construction of features and facilities needed to develop and deliver sufficient water to existing infrastructure for distribution in municipal, rural, and industrial (MR&I) water users in the service area. A No Action Alternative and seven action alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The alternative preferred by the state of North Dakota, known as the GDU Import to Sheyenne River Alternative, would supplement existing water supplied to meet future water needs with a combination of Red River water, other North Dakota in-basin water sources, and imported Missouri River water. The principal feature of the alternative would consist of a pipeline from the McClusky Canal to Lake Ashtabula that would release treated Missouri River water into the Sheyenne River at a point three miles above the reservoir. The pipe would be sized so peak-day demands could be met by Lake Ashtabula releases into the Sheyenne River. This alternative would include a biota treatment plant at the McClusky Canal and a pipeline to serve industrial water demands in southeastern North Dakota. The biota treatment process would use coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, and ultraviolet disinfection. The import capacity of this alternative, as estimated by in report published in 2005, ranges from 62 to 97 cubic feet per second (cfs). However, earlier analysis estimated it at 78 to 120 cfs; this latter range was used in the impact analysis for this EIS because it provides the scope for a broader range of potential impacts. Annualized overall cost for construction of facilities and operation and maintenance of the state-preferred system is estimated at $32.6 million. The federally preferred alternative has not yet been identified. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley as indicated in a number of previous studies, most recently a study published in 2005. Water would be supplied to the 13 eastern counties of North Dakota and the Minnesota communities of Brekenridge, Moorhead, and East Grand Forks. The total maximum annual MR&I water demand in 2050 of 114,000 to 143,000 acre-feet would be satisfied. Moreover, water quality would be improved such that current exceedances of federal quality standards and criteria would be addressed. The plan would also address needs related to maintenance of the aquatic environment, recreational users, and water conservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development and operations could result in impacts to water quality and quantity in the McClusky River as well as groundwater tables depending on the river for replenishment and stability. Associated impacts to aquatic communities, wetlands, grasslands, woodlands, and riparian areas would be expected. Pipeline construction could affect culturally significant structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Dakota Water Resources Act (P.L. 106-554) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 050554, 351 pages, December 30, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 05-79
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Red River of the North
KW  - Sheyenne River
KW  - Dakota Water Resources Act, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388370?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+RIVER+VALLEY+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=RED+RIVER+VALLEY+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 30, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RED RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, MINNESOTA AND NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - RED RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, MINNESOTA AND NORTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 36388349; 11869-050554_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a bulk water supply project to meet the long-term water needs of the Red River Valley in North Dakota and Minnesota are proposed. Most of the population of the Red River Valley, including the residents of Fargo and Grand Forks, North Dakota and Moorhead and East Grand Forks, Minnesota rely on the Red River of the North and its tributaries as primary or sole sources of water. A climate study to investigate the frequency of droughts in the Red River Basin concluded that the valley would probably experience an extreme drought in the next 50 years. It is estimated at the present water supplies of the valley would fall short of meeting the current annual water demand by approximately 16 percent during a severe drought. Water users in the valley would experience a water supply deficit of 46 percent during the month of February. If population growth trends continue in the valley, the projected water supply shortages would become even greater in the future. The proposed action would include construction of features and facilities needed to develop and deliver sufficient water to existing infrastructure for distribution in municipal, rural, and industrial (MR&I) water users in the service area. A No Action Alternative and seven action alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The alternative preferred by the state of North Dakota, known as the GDU Import to Sheyenne River Alternative, would supplement existing water supplied to meet future water needs with a combination of Red River water, other North Dakota in-basin water sources, and imported Missouri River water. The principal feature of the alternative would consist of a pipeline from the McClusky Canal to Lake Ashtabula that would release treated Missouri River water into the Sheyenne River at a point three miles above the reservoir. The pipe would be sized so peak-day demands could be met by Lake Ashtabula releases into the Sheyenne River. This alternative would include a biota treatment plant at the McClusky Canal and a pipeline to serve industrial water demands in southeastern North Dakota. The biota treatment process would use coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, and ultraviolet disinfection. The import capacity of this alternative, as estimated by in report published in 2005, ranges from 62 to 97 cubic feet per second (cfs). However, earlier analysis estimated it at 78 to 120 cfs; this latter range was used in the impact analysis for this EIS because it provides the scope for a broader range of potential impacts. Annualized overall cost for construction of facilities and operation and maintenance of the state-preferred system is estimated at $32.6 million. The federally preferred alternative has not yet been identified. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley as indicated in a number of previous studies, most recently a study published in 2005. Water would be supplied to the 13 eastern counties of North Dakota and the Minnesota communities of Brekenridge, Moorhead, and East Grand Forks. The total maximum annual MR&I water demand in 2050 of 114,000 to 143,000 acre-feet would be satisfied. Moreover, water quality would be improved such that current exceedances of federal quality standards and criteria would be addressed. The plan would also address needs related to maintenance of the aquatic environment, recreational users, and water conservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development and operations could result in impacts to water quality and quantity in the McClusky River as well as groundwater tables depending on the river for replenishment and stability. Associated impacts to aquatic communities, wetlands, grasslands, woodlands, and riparian areas would be expected. Pipeline construction could affect culturally significant structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Dakota Water Resources Act (P.L. 106-554) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 050554, 351 pages, December 30, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 05-79
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Red River of the North
KW  - Sheyenne River
KW  - Dakota Water Resources Act, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36388349?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+RIVER+VALLEY+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=RED+RIVER+VALLEY+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 30, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONSTRUCTION INTO THE POWDER RIVER BASIN, POWDER RIVER BASIN EXPANSION PROJECT, MINNESOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, WYOMING (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 33407 - DAKOTA, MINNESOTA, & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION) (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2001). [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - CONSTRUCTION INTO THE POWDER RIVER BASIN, POWDER RIVER BASIN EXPANSION PROJECT, MINNESOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, WYOMING (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 33407 - DAKOTA, MINNESOTA, & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION) (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2001).
AN  - 36379658; 11868-050553_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: Issuance of a permit for the construction and operation of a new rail line and associated facilities in east-central Wyoming, southwest South Dakota, and south-central Minnesota is proposed. The rail line would allow the applicant, Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation (DM&E), to become the third rail carrier to serve Wyoming's Powder River Basin coal mines. The project would involve construction of 280 miles of new line and rehabilitation of 600 miles of existing line. The applicants proposal would include 262.-3 miles of new rail line extending from DM&E's existing system near Wasta, South Dakota. The new line would extend generally to the southwest to Edgemont, South Dakota, thence west into Wyoming to connect with existing coal mines located south of Gillette. This portion of the new construction would traverse portions of Custer, Fall River, Jackson, and Pennington counties, South Dakota and Campbel, Converse, Niobrara, and Weston counties, Wyoming. The new rail construction would also include a 13.31-mile line segment at Mankato, Minnesota within Blue Earth and Nicollet counties. DM&E current uses trackage on both sides of Mankato, accessed by trackage rights on rail line operated by the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP). The Mankato construction would provide DM&E direct access between its existing lines and allow DM&E to avoid operational conflicts with UP. The final proposed segment of new rail construction would create a connection between the existing rail systems of DM&E and the I&M Link Railroad. The connection would include construction and operation of approximately 2.94 miles of new rail line near Owatonna, Minnesota in Steele County. To transport coal over the existing system, DM&E would rebuild and upgrade approximately 597.8 miles of rail line along its existing system; 584.95 miles of the rehabilitated track would be along DM&E's mainline between Wasta, South Dakota, and Winona, Minnesota. This upgrade project would cross Winona, Olmstead, Dodge, Steele, Waseca, Nicollet, Blue Earth, Brown, Redwood, Lyon, and Lincoln counties in Minnesota, and Brookings, Kingsbury, Beadle, Hand, Hyde, Hughes, Stanley, Hakon, and Jackson counties in South Dakota. An additional 12.85 miles of existing rail line between Oral and Smithwick, in Fall River County, South Dakota, would also be rebuilt. Rail rehabilitation would include rail and tie replacement, additional sidings, signals, grade crossing improvements, and other system improvements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered with respect to extension of the system in the final EIS of November 2001. Key issues addressed during scoping for this final supplemental EIS include those related to horn noise, the relationship between vibration and horn noise, and potential for increased coal consumption in the region serviced by DM&E. Alternative B would call for new construction to occur along the Cheyenne River. Alternative C would avoid new construction in sensitive areas in South Dakota and Wyoming. Alternative D would reconstruct the existing line through Rapid City to Smithwick, provide for new construction to Edgemont, and continue with construction adjacent to the existing rail bed through Newcastle and Moorcroft. As numerous federal and state agencies are involved in the decision regarding choice of a preferred alternative, a number of preferences have been forwarded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of a third rail carrier to serve the Powder River Basin would increase the efficiency of the movement of coal eastward from the basin. The new rail line would also increase the operational efficiency of DM&E's existing rail line in Minnesota and South Dakota. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the rail system would affect geology and soils, surface water and wetlands, groundwater, vegetation, agricultural land and operations, residential and commercial land uses, public land uses, cultural resources, recreation resources, environmental justice with respect to disadvantaged populations and minorities and the elderly, ranching, traditional Native American tribal cultural properties and other cultural resources, visual aesthetics. air quality, certain threatened and endangered species, and safety, including emergency vehicle response times. System operation would result in the generation of noise and vibration. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (49 U.S.C. 10901), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0440D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 02-0073F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0683D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 050553, Final Supplemental EIS--397 pages, Replacement Pages (Comments)--169 pages, December 30, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Coal
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Wyoming
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
KW  - Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379658?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSTRUCTION+INTO+THE+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN%2C+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%2C+WYOMING+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+33407+-+DAKOTA%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+%26+EASTERN+RAILROAD+CORPORATION%29+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2001%29.&rft.title=CONSTRUCTION+INTO+THE+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN%2C+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%2C+WYOMING+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+33407+-+DAKOTA%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+%26+EASTERN+RAILROAD+CORPORATION%29+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2001%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 - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 30, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONSTRUCTION INTO THE POWDER RIVER BASIN, POWDER RIVER BASIN EXPANSION PROJECT, MINNESOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, WYOMING (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 33407 - DAKOTA, MINNESOTA, & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION) (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2001). [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - CONSTRUCTION INTO THE POWDER RIVER BASIN, POWDER RIVER BASIN EXPANSION PROJECT, MINNESOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, WYOMING (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 33407 - DAKOTA, MINNESOTA, & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION) (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2001).
AN  - 36378898; 11868-050553_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: Issuance of a permit for the construction and operation of a new rail line and associated facilities in east-central Wyoming, southwest South Dakota, and south-central Minnesota is proposed. The rail line would allow the applicant, Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation (DM&E), to become the third rail carrier to serve Wyoming's Powder River Basin coal mines. The project would involve construction of 280 miles of new line and rehabilitation of 600 miles of existing line. The applicants proposal would include 262.-3 miles of new rail line extending from DM&E's existing system near Wasta, South Dakota. The new line would extend generally to the southwest to Edgemont, South Dakota, thence west into Wyoming to connect with existing coal mines located south of Gillette. This portion of the new construction would traverse portions of Custer, Fall River, Jackson, and Pennington counties, South Dakota and Campbel, Converse, Niobrara, and Weston counties, Wyoming. The new rail construction would also include a 13.31-mile line segment at Mankato, Minnesota within Blue Earth and Nicollet counties. DM&E current uses trackage on both sides of Mankato, accessed by trackage rights on rail line operated by the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP). The Mankato construction would provide DM&E direct access between its existing lines and allow DM&E to avoid operational conflicts with UP. The final proposed segment of new rail construction would create a connection between the existing rail systems of DM&E and the I&M Link Railroad. The connection would include construction and operation of approximately 2.94 miles of new rail line near Owatonna, Minnesota in Steele County. To transport coal over the existing system, DM&E would rebuild and upgrade approximately 597.8 miles of rail line along its existing system; 584.95 miles of the rehabilitated track would be along DM&E's mainline between Wasta, South Dakota, and Winona, Minnesota. This upgrade project would cross Winona, Olmstead, Dodge, Steele, Waseca, Nicollet, Blue Earth, Brown, Redwood, Lyon, and Lincoln counties in Minnesota, and Brookings, Kingsbury, Beadle, Hand, Hyde, Hughes, Stanley, Hakon, and Jackson counties in South Dakota. An additional 12.85 miles of existing rail line between Oral and Smithwick, in Fall River County, South Dakota, would also be rebuilt. Rail rehabilitation would include rail and tie replacement, additional sidings, signals, grade crossing improvements, and other system improvements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered with respect to extension of the system in the final EIS of November 2001. Key issues addressed during scoping for this final supplemental EIS include those related to horn noise, the relationship between vibration and horn noise, and potential for increased coal consumption in the region serviced by DM&E. Alternative B would call for new construction to occur along the Cheyenne River. Alternative C would avoid new construction in sensitive areas in South Dakota and Wyoming. Alternative D would reconstruct the existing line through Rapid City to Smithwick, provide for new construction to Edgemont, and continue with construction adjacent to the existing rail bed through Newcastle and Moorcroft. As numerous federal and state agencies are involved in the decision regarding choice of a preferred alternative, a number of preferences have been forwarded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of a third rail carrier to serve the Powder River Basin would increase the efficiency of the movement of coal eastward from the basin. The new rail line would also increase the operational efficiency of DM&E's existing rail line in Minnesota and South Dakota. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the rail system would affect geology and soils, surface water and wetlands, groundwater, vegetation, agricultural land and operations, residential and commercial land uses, public land uses, cultural resources, recreation resources, environmental justice with respect to disadvantaged populations and minorities and the elderly, ranching, traditional Native American tribal cultural properties and other cultural resources, visual aesthetics. air quality, certain threatened and endangered species, and safety, including emergency vehicle response times. System operation would result in the generation of noise and vibration. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (49 U.S.C. 10901), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0440D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 02-0073F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0683D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 050553, Final Supplemental EIS--397 pages, Replacement Pages (Comments)--169 pages, December 30, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 2
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Coal
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Wyoming
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
KW  - Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378898?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSTRUCTION+INTO+THE+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN%2C+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%2C+WYOMING+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+33407+-+DAKOTA%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+%26+EASTERN+RAILROAD+CORPORATION%29+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2001%29.&rft.title=CONSTRUCTION+INTO+THE+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN%2C+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%2C+WYOMING+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+33407+-+DAKOTA%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+%26+EASTERN+RAILROAD+CORPORATION%29+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2001%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 - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 30, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RED RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, MINNESOTA AND NORTH DAKOTA.
AN  - 16355523; 11869
AB  - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a bulk water supply project to meet the long-term water needs of the Red River Valley in North Dakota and Minnesota are proposed. Most of the population of the Red River Valley, including the residents of Fargo and Grand Forks, North Dakota and Moorhead and East Grand Forks, Minnesota rely on the Red River of the North and its tributaries as primary or sole sources of water. A climate study to investigate the frequency of droughts in the Red River Basin concluded that the valley would probably experience an extreme drought in the next 50 years. It is estimated at the present water supplies of the valley would fall short of meeting the current annual water demand by approximately 16 percent during a severe drought. Water users in the valley would experience a water supply deficit of 46 percent during the month of February. If population growth trends continue in the valley, the projected water supply shortages would become even greater in the future. The proposed action would include construction of features and facilities needed to develop and deliver sufficient water to existing infrastructure for distribution in municipal, rural, and industrial (MR&I) water users in the service area. A No Action Alternative and seven action alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The alternative preferred by the state of North Dakota, known as the GDU Import to Sheyenne River Alternative, would supplement existing water supplied to meet future water needs with a combination of Red River water, other North Dakota in-basin water sources, and imported Missouri River water. The principal feature of the alternative would consist of a pipeline from the McClusky Canal to Lake Ashtabula that would release treated Missouri River water into the Sheyenne River at a point three miles above the reservoir. The pipe would be sized so peak-day demands could be met by Lake Ashtabula releases into the Sheyenne River. This alternative would include a biota treatment plant at the McClusky Canal and a pipeline to serve industrial water demands in southeastern North Dakota. The biota treatment process would use coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, and ultraviolet disinfection. The import capacity of this alternative, as estimated by in report published in 2005, ranges from 62 to 97 cubic feet per second (cfs). However, earlier analysis estimated it at 78 to 120 cfs; this latter range was used in the impact analysis for this EIS because it provides the scope for a broader range of potential impacts. Annualized overall cost for construction of facilities and operation and maintenance of the state-preferred system is estimated at $32.6 million. The federally preferred alternative has not yet been identified. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would meet the comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley as indicated in a number of previous studies, most recently a study published in 2005. Water would be supplied to the 13 eastern counties of North Dakota and the Minnesota communities of Brekenridge, Moorhead, and East Grand Forks. The total maximum annual MR&I water demand in 2050 of 114,000 to 143,000 acre-feet would be satisfied. Moreover, water quality would be improved such that current exceedances of federal quality standards and criteria would be addressed. The plan would also address needs related to maintenance of the aquatic environment, recreational users, and water conservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development and operations could result in impacts to water quality and quantity in the McClusky River as well as groundwater tables depending on the river for replenishment and stability. Associated impacts to aquatic communities, wetlands, grasslands, woodlands, and riparian areas would be expected. Pipeline construction could affect culturally significant structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Dakota Water Resources Act (P.L. 106-554) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986.
JF  - EPA number: 050554, 351 pages, December 30, 2005
PY  - 2005
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 05-79
KW  - Industrial Water
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Water (Potable)
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Storage
KW  - Water Supply
KW  - Water Treatment
KW  - Weather
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - North Dakota
KW  - Red River of the North
KW  - Sheyenne River
KW  - Dakota Water Resources Act, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16355523?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+RIVER+VALLEY+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=RED+RIVER+VALLEY+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA+AND+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 30, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CONSTRUCTION INTO THE POWDER RIVER BASIN, POWDER RIVER BASIN EXPANSION PROJECT, MINNESOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, WYOMING (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 33407 - DAKOTA, MINNESOTA, & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION) (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2001).
AN  - 16345566; 11868
AB  - PURPOSE: Issuance of a permit for the construction and operation of a new rail line and associated facilities in east-central Wyoming, southwest South Dakota, and south-central Minnesota is proposed. The rail line would allow the applicant, Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation (DM&E), to become the third rail carrier to serve Wyoming's Powder River Basin coal mines. The project would involve construction of 280 miles of new line and rehabilitation of 600 miles of existing line. The applicants proposal would include 262.-3 miles of new rail line extending from DM&E's existing system near Wasta, South Dakota. The new line would extend generally to the southwest to Edgemont, South Dakota, thence west into Wyoming to connect with existing coal mines located south of Gillette. This portion of the new construction would traverse portions of Custer, Fall River, Jackson, and Pennington counties, South Dakota and Campbel, Converse, Niobrara, and Weston counties, Wyoming. The new rail construction would also include a 13.31-mile line segment at Mankato, Minnesota within Blue Earth and Nicollet counties. DM&E current uses trackage on both sides of Mankato, accessed by trackage rights on rail line operated by the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP). The Mankato construction would provide DM&E direct access between its existing lines and allow DM&E to avoid operational conflicts with UP. The final proposed segment of new rail construction would create a connection between the existing rail systems of DM&E and the I&M Link Railroad. The connection would include construction and operation of approximately 2.94 miles of new rail line near Owatonna, Minnesota in Steele County. To transport coal over the existing system, DM&E would rebuild and upgrade approximately 597.8 miles of rail line along its existing system; 584.95 miles of the rehabilitated track would be along DM&E's mainline between Wasta, South Dakota, and Winona, Minnesota. This upgrade project would cross Winona, Olmstead, Dodge, Steele, Waseca, Nicollet, Blue Earth, Brown, Redwood, Lyon, and Lincoln counties in Minnesota, and Brookings, Kingsbury, Beadle, Hand, Hyde, Hughes, Stanley, Hakon, and Jackson counties in South Dakota. An additional 12.85 miles of existing rail line between Oral and Smithwick, in Fall River County, South Dakota, would also be rebuilt. Rail rehabilitation would include rail and tie replacement, additional sidings, signals, grade crossing improvements, and other system improvements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered with respect to extension of the system in the final EIS of November 2001. Key issues addressed during scoping for this final supplemental EIS include those related to horn noise, the relationship between vibration and horn noise, and potential for increased coal consumption in the region serviced by DM&E. Alternative B would call for new construction to occur along the Cheyenne River. Alternative C would avoid new construction in sensitive areas in South Dakota and Wyoming. Alternative D would reconstruct the existing line through Rapid City to Smithwick, provide for new construction to Edgemont, and continue with construction adjacent to the existing rail bed through Newcastle and Moorcroft. As numerous federal and state agencies are involved in the decision regarding choice of a preferred alternative, a number of preferences have been forwarded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of a third rail carrier to serve the Powder River Basin would increase the efficiency of the movement of coal eastward from the basin. The new rail line would also increase the operational efficiency of DM&E's existing rail line in Minnesota and South Dakota. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the rail system would affect geology and soils, surface water and wetlands, groundwater, vegetation, agricultural land and operations, residential and commercial land uses, public land uses, cultural resources, recreation resources, environmental justice with respect to disadvantaged populations and minorities and the elderly, ranching, traditional Native American tribal cultural properties and other cultural resources, visual aesthetics. air quality, certain threatened and endangered species, and safety, including emergency vehicle response times. System operation would result in the generation of noise and vibration. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (49 U.S.C. 10901), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0440D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 02-0073F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0683D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 050553, Final Supplemental EIS--397 pages, Replacement Pages (Comments)--169 pages, December 30, 2005
PY  - 2005
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Coal
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Noise
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Soils
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wildlife
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Minnesota
KW  - South Dakota
KW  - Wyoming
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
KW  - Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, Project Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16345566?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSTRUCTION+INTO+THE+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN%2C+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%2C+WYOMING+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+33407+-+DAKOTA%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+%26+EASTERN+RAILROAD+CORPORATION%29+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2001%29.&rft.title=CONSTRUCTION+INTO+THE+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN%2C+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%2C+WYOMING+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+33407+-+DAKOTA%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+%26+EASTERN+RAILROAD+CORPORATION%29+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2001%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 - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 30, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 34 of 108]
T2  - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36389847; 050035D-050546_0034
AB  - PURPOSE: Extension of the current open pit phosphate mining operations of the Smoky Canyon Mine of Caribou County, Idaho is proposed by the mine's operator, J.R. Simplot Company. The mine would be extended into two federal phosphate leases (Manning Creek No. I-27512 and Deer Creek No. I-01441, known, respectively as the Panel F and Panel G lease areas). The leases are administered y the Bureau of Land Management, while the surfaces of the leases are managed by the U.S. Forest Service as part of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. If approved, mining would begin in Panel F in 2006-2007 at the same time mining was completed in the existing Panel B. The proposed mining would commence in Panel F with mining being initiated in Panel G a few years later. All mining and reclamation activities would be completed over a period of approximately 16 years to ensure reclamation meets federal requirements. The mining activities would include construction of a new haul/access road extending south from Panel E across South Fork Sage Creek to the Manning Lease. Open-pit mining operations would commence within this lease and would generally proved from north to south in Panel F. Overburden removed from the north end of Panel F would initially be hauled north to complete backfilling of 29 acres in Panel E; overburden would also be placed in a 38-acre external overburden fill. The rest of the overburden would be used as backfill in the Panel F open pit. A total of 138 acres of the southern-most part of Panel F would be located in a lease modification to be added to Lease I-27512 and the northern-most two acres of the open pit would be located on another proposed lease modification to the same lease. After several years of mining in Panel F, a haul access road and power line would be built to connect Panels F and G. A 100-gallon-per-minute water supply well would be drilled at Panel G. Initial overburden from the open pit at Panel G would be placed in a 74-are overburden fill southwest of the pit and a 64-acre external overburden fill located east of the pit. The rest of the overburden would be sued as a pit backfill. In addition to the proposed action, seven mining alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would allow both lease modifications, prohibit placement of seleniferous overburden external to the pit backfills, provide for placement of an infiltration barrier cap over all areas of seleniferous overburden disposal, location of the power line for panels F and G along the selected haul/access road corridors; and use of the existing East Haul Access road to transport personnel and materials into Panel G and for hauling phosphate ore from the panel to the existing Smoky Canyon mill. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the Simply mining operations would continue economically viable development of the phosphate resources within the federal mineral leases at the site and to supply phosphate ore to Simplot's fertilizer plant. Mining would remove barriers to aquifer recharge in the panel areas. Mining would significantly boost, or at least maintain, employment in the area and otherwise boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance from all operations would cover 1,340 acres, including: for Panel F), 435 acres of pits, 67 acres of roads, 38 acres of external overburden, and 52 acres of other disturbance such as settling ponds and ditches, topsoil stockpiles, and a power line; and, for Panel G, 328 acres of pits, 217 acres of roads, 138 acres of external overburden fills, and 65 acres of other disturbance such as those for Panel F. Vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for big game and migratory birds, would be destroyed and erosion in the immediate area would be exacerbated. Approximately 475 feet of perennial stream channel, 21,030 feet of intermittent stream channel, and 65 acres of aquatic influence zones would be disturbed. Solute concentrations in groundwater would increase in the area, degrading water quality somewhat. Historically significant livestock grazing and recreational uses on affected lands would be eliminated. Approximately 1,040 acres within the Sage Creek Road less Area and 60 acres within the Meade Peak Road less Area would be disturbed by mining and road construction. Two arborglyph sites and a historic cabin would be affected by mining activities. Small portions of wetland areas would be displaced. Treaty rights of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe would be abridged due to road construction and mining. Air pollutant emissions, primarily exhaust and dust, would amount to 8,422 tons over the project life. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050546, 987 pages, December 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 34
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Fertilizers
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Caribou-Targhee National Forest
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389847?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMOKY+CANYON+MINE%2C+PANELS+F+%26+G%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=SMOKY+CANYON+MINE%2C+PANELS+F+%26+G%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH SHORE ROAD, SWAIN AND GRAHAM COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - NORTH SHORE ROAD, SWAIN AND GRAHAM COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA.
AN  - 36389428; 11863-050548_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement of North Shore road in Swain County, North Carolina is proposed. The project corridor includes a potion of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and the record of decision for this EIS process would serve as a general management plan amendment for the park if an alternative that is not consistent with the current park direction was adopted. In 1943, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Department of the Interior, and the state of North Carolina, and Swain County entered into a memorandum of agreement that dealt with the creation of Fontana Dam and Reservoir and the resultant flooding of lands and roads within the county. As part of the agreement, 44,170 acres of land were transferred to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and made part of the national park. The agreement contained a provision by which the state was to construct a road from Bryson City to the national park boundary, and the BLM was to construct a road through the park along the north shore of the newly formed Fontana Reservoir to replace flooded NC 288. The state completed its obligation n 1959, but the BLM lacked funding for road construction. Between 1948 and 1970, the Department of the Interior, through the National Park Service, built 7.2 miles of the proposed read, leaving 30 miles unconstructed. During the early construction efforts, it was discovered that the route of the road would be through unstable terrain, resulting in the possibility of landslides during and after construction and requiring more extensive engineering than originally supposed. A stratum subject to acid leaching was also encountered. In October 2000, Congress appropriated $16 million for construction or, and improvements to, North Shore Road. In the meantime, environmental groups have contended that construction and use of the road would harm park resources; certain of these entities support a cash settlement in lieu of the road. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives include the monetary settlement proposal, development of a Laurel Branch Picnic Area and associated access road; a partial-build alternative extending eight miles from the existing tunnel west to the vicinity of the former Bushnell settlement, and one full-build alternatives. Two road types are under consideration, including a paved principal park road and a gravel primitive park road. Estimated costs of the monetary settlement, Laurel Branch alternative are $52 million and $13.7 million, respectively. The cost of partial-build alternative extending to Bushnell is estimated to range from $92.2 million to $148.6 million, with the low figure applying to the primitive park road design and the high figure applying to the principal park road design. The estimated costs of the full-build alternatives range from $344.9 million to $589.7 million, the figures representing the primitive and principal park road options, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The construction of the road would allow families that lived along the north shore of the Little Tennessee River prior to its acquisition by the national park access to old home sites and family cemeteries. The road would also provide economic benefits to the county via increased tourist access. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional traffic in the area would affect the pristine natural appearance of the corridor along the lake. Under the build alternatives, from eight to 906 acres would be reclassified from natural environment to a transportation subzone. Vegetation and wildlife habitat, including habitat for migratory birds and the federally protected bald eagle and Indiana bat, would be permanently displaced in the construction corridor. Six historic structures and several archaeological sites could be affected by construction activities and roadway use. The Appalachian National Scenic Trail would be affected. All build alternatives would encroach on the 100-year floodplain at major stream crossings. Approximately 69 acres of wetlands would lie within the corridor affected by the project, and lakes and streams would also suffer from increased runoff and the associated pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050548, 1,091 pages and maps, CD-ROM, December 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 3
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: DES 05-75
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Cemeteries
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Highways
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Roads
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - North Carolina
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389428?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+SHORE+ROAD%2C+SWAIN+AND+GRAHAM+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=NORTH+SHORE+ROAD%2C+SWAIN+AND+GRAHAM+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH SHORE ROAD, SWAIN AND GRAHAM COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - NORTH SHORE ROAD, SWAIN AND GRAHAM COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA.
AN  - 36389346; 11863-050548_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement of North Shore road in Swain County, North Carolina is proposed. The project corridor includes a potion of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and the record of decision for this EIS process would serve as a general management plan amendment for the park if an alternative that is not consistent with the current park direction was adopted. In 1943, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Department of the Interior, and the state of North Carolina, and Swain County entered into a memorandum of agreement that dealt with the creation of Fontana Dam and Reservoir and the resultant flooding of lands and roads within the county. As part of the agreement, 44,170 acres of land were transferred to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and made part of the national park. The agreement contained a provision by which the state was to construct a road from Bryson City to the national park boundary, and the BLM was to construct a road through the park along the north shore of the newly formed Fontana Reservoir to replace flooded NC 288. The state completed its obligation n 1959, but the BLM lacked funding for road construction. Between 1948 and 1970, the Department of the Interior, through the National Park Service, built 7.2 miles of the proposed read, leaving 30 miles unconstructed. During the early construction efforts, it was discovered that the route of the road would be through unstable terrain, resulting in the possibility of landslides during and after construction and requiring more extensive engineering than originally supposed. A stratum subject to acid leaching was also encountered. In October 2000, Congress appropriated $16 million for construction or, and improvements to, North Shore Road. In the meantime, environmental groups have contended that construction and use of the road would harm park resources; certain of these entities support a cash settlement in lieu of the road. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives include the monetary settlement proposal, development of a Laurel Branch Picnic Area and associated access road; a partial-build alternative extending eight miles from the existing tunnel west to the vicinity of the former Bushnell settlement, and one full-build alternatives. Two road types are under consideration, including a paved principal park road and a gravel primitive park road. Estimated costs of the monetary settlement, Laurel Branch alternative are $52 million and $13.7 million, respectively. The cost of partial-build alternative extending to Bushnell is estimated to range from $92.2 million to $148.6 million, with the low figure applying to the primitive park road design and the high figure applying to the principal park road design. The estimated costs of the full-build alternatives range from $344.9 million to $589.7 million, the figures representing the primitive and principal park road options, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The construction of the road would allow families that lived along the north shore of the Little Tennessee River prior to its acquisition by the national park access to old home sites and family cemeteries. The road would also provide economic benefits to the county via increased tourist access. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional traffic in the area would affect the pristine natural appearance of the corridor along the lake. Under the build alternatives, from eight to 906 acres would be reclassified from natural environment to a transportation subzone. Vegetation and wildlife habitat, including habitat for migratory birds and the federally protected bald eagle and Indiana bat, would be permanently displaced in the construction corridor. Six historic structures and several archaeological sites could be affected by construction activities and roadway use. The Appalachian National Scenic Trail would be affected. All build alternatives would encroach on the 100-year floodplain at major stream crossings. Approximately 69 acres of wetlands would lie within the corridor affected by the project, and lakes and streams would also suffer from increased runoff and the associated pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050548, 1,091 pages and maps, CD-ROM, December 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: DES 05-75
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Cemeteries
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Highways
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Roads
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - North Carolina
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389346?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+SHORE+ROAD%2C+SWAIN+AND+GRAHAM+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=NORTH+SHORE+ROAD%2C+SWAIN+AND+GRAHAM+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 90 of 108]
T2  - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36386439; 050035D-050546_0090
AB  - PURPOSE: Extension of the current open pit phosphate mining operations of the Smoky Canyon Mine of Caribou County, Idaho is proposed by the mine's operator, J.R. Simplot Company. The mine would be extended into two federal phosphate leases (Manning Creek No. I-27512 and Deer Creek No. I-01441, known, respectively as the Panel F and Panel G lease areas). The leases are administered y the Bureau of Land Management, while the surfaces of the leases are managed by the U.S. Forest Service as part of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. If approved, mining would begin in Panel F in 2006-2007 at the same time mining was completed in the existing Panel B. The proposed mining would commence in Panel F with mining being initiated in Panel G a few years later. All mining and reclamation activities would be completed over a period of approximately 16 years to ensure reclamation meets federal requirements. The mining activities would include construction of a new haul/access road extending south from Panel E across South Fork Sage Creek to the Manning Lease. Open-pit mining operations would commence within this lease and would generally proved from north to south in Panel F. Overburden removed from the north end of Panel F would initially be hauled north to complete backfilling of 29 acres in Panel E; overburden would also be placed in a 38-acre external overburden fill. The rest of the overburden would be used as backfill in the Panel F open pit. A total of 138 acres of the southern-most part of Panel F would be located in a lease modification to be added to Lease I-27512 and the northern-most two acres of the open pit would be located on another proposed lease modification to the same lease. After several years of mining in Panel F, a haul access road and power line would be built to connect Panels F and G. A 100-gallon-per-minute water supply well would be drilled at Panel G. Initial overburden from the open pit at Panel G would be placed in a 74-are overburden fill southwest of the pit and a 64-acre external overburden fill located east of the pit. The rest of the overburden would be sued as a pit backfill. In addition to the proposed action, seven mining alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would allow both lease modifications, prohibit placement of seleniferous overburden external to the pit backfills, provide for placement of an infiltration barrier cap over all areas of seleniferous overburden disposal, location of the power line for panels F and G along the selected haul/access road corridors; and use of the existing East Haul Access road to transport personnel and materials into Panel G and for hauling phosphate ore from the panel to the existing Smoky Canyon mill. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the Simply mining operations would continue economically viable development of the phosphate resources within the federal mineral leases at the site and to supply phosphate ore to Simplot's fertilizer plant. Mining would remove barriers to aquifer recharge in the panel areas. Mining would significantly boost, or at least maintain, employment in the area and otherwise boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance from all operations would cover 1,340 acres, including: for Panel F), 435 acres of pits, 67 acres of roads, 38 acres of external overburden, and 52 acres of other disturbance such as settling ponds and ditches, topsoil stockpiles, and a power line; and, for Panel G, 328 acres of pits, 217 acres of roads, 138 acres of external overburden fills, and 65 acres of other disturbance such as those for Panel F. Vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for big game and migratory birds, would be destroyed and erosion in the immediate area would be exacerbated. Approximately 475 feet of perennial stream channel, 21,030 feet of intermittent stream channel, and 65 acres of aquatic influence zones would be disturbed. Solute concentrations in groundwater would increase in the area, degrading water quality somewhat. Historically significant livestock grazing and recreational uses on affected lands would be eliminated. Approximately 1,040 acres within the Sage Creek Road less Area and 60 acres within the Meade Peak Road less Area would be disturbed by mining and road construction. Two arborglyph sites and a historic cabin would be affected by mining activities. Small portions of wetland areas would be displaced. Treaty rights of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe would be abridged due to road construction and mining. Air pollutant emissions, primarily exhaust and dust, would amount to 8,422 tons over the project life. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050546, 987 pages, December 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 90
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Fertilizers
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Caribou-Targhee National Forest
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36386439?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMOKY+CANYON+MINE%2C+PANELS+F+%26+G%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=SMOKY+CANYON+MINE%2C+PANELS+F+%26+G%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 12 of 108]
T2  - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36385708; 050035D-050546_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: Extension of the current open pit phosphate mining operations of the Smoky Canyon Mine of Caribou County, Idaho is proposed by the mine's operator, J.R. Simplot Company. The mine would be extended into two federal phosphate leases (Manning Creek No. I-27512 and Deer Creek No. I-01441, known, respectively as the Panel F and Panel G lease areas). The leases are administered y the Bureau of Land Management, while the surfaces of the leases are managed by the U.S. Forest Service as part of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. If approved, mining would begin in Panel F in 2006-2007 at the same time mining was completed in the existing Panel B. The proposed mining would commence in Panel F with mining being initiated in Panel G a few years later. All mining and reclamation activities would be completed over a period of approximately 16 years to ensure reclamation meets federal requirements. The mining activities would include construction of a new haul/access road extending south from Panel E across South Fork Sage Creek to the Manning Lease. Open-pit mining operations would commence within this lease and would generally proved from north to south in Panel F. Overburden removed from the north end of Panel F would initially be hauled north to complete backfilling of 29 acres in Panel E; overburden would also be placed in a 38-acre external overburden fill. The rest of the overburden would be used as backfill in the Panel F open pit. A total of 138 acres of the southern-most part of Panel F would be located in a lease modification to be added to Lease I-27512 and the northern-most two acres of the open pit would be located on another proposed lease modification to the same lease. After several years of mining in Panel F, a haul access road and power line would be built to connect Panels F and G. A 100-gallon-per-minute water supply well would be drilled at Panel G. Initial overburden from the open pit at Panel G would be placed in a 74-are overburden fill southwest of the pit and a 64-acre external overburden fill located east of the pit. The rest of the overburden would be sued as a pit backfill. In addition to the proposed action, seven mining alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would allow both lease modifications, prohibit placement of seleniferous overburden external to the pit backfills, provide for placement of an infiltration barrier cap over all areas of seleniferous overburden disposal, location of the power line for panels F and G along the selected haul/access road corridors; and use of the existing East Haul Access road to transport personnel and materials into Panel G and for hauling phosphate ore from the panel to the existing Smoky Canyon mill. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the Simply mining operations would continue economically viable development of the phosphate resources within the federal mineral leases at the site and to supply phosphate ore to Simplot's fertilizer plant. Mining would remove barriers to aquifer recharge in the panel areas. Mining would significantly boost, or at least maintain, employment in the area and otherwise boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance from all operations would cover 1,340 acres, including: for Panel F), 435 acres of pits, 67 acres of roads, 38 acres of external overburden, and 52 acres of other disturbance such as settling ponds and ditches, topsoil stockpiles, and a power line; and, for Panel G, 328 acres of pits, 217 acres of roads, 138 acres of external overburden fills, and 65 acres of other disturbance such as those for Panel F. Vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for big game and migratory birds, would be destroyed and erosion in the immediate area would be exacerbated. Approximately 475 feet of perennial stream channel, 21,030 feet of intermittent stream channel, and 65 acres of aquatic influence zones would be disturbed. Solute concentrations in groundwater would increase in the area, degrading water quality somewhat. Historically significant livestock grazing and recreational uses on affected lands would be eliminated. Approximately 1,040 acres within the Sage Creek Road less Area and 60 acres within the Meade Peak Road less Area would be disturbed by mining and road construction. Two arborglyph sites and a historic cabin would be affected by mining activities. Small portions of wetland areas would be displaced. Treaty rights of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe would be abridged due to road construction and mining. Air pollutant emissions, primarily exhaust and dust, would amount to 8,422 tons over the project life. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050546, 987 pages, December 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 12
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Fertilizers
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Caribou-Targhee National Forest
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36385708?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMOKY+CANYON+MINE%2C+PANELS+F+%26+G%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=SMOKY+CANYON+MINE%2C+PANELS+F+%26+G%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 15 of 108]
T2  - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36384056; 050035D-050546_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: Extension of the current open pit phosphate mining operations of the Smoky Canyon Mine of Caribou County, Idaho is proposed by the mine's operator, J.R. Simplot Company. The mine would be extended into two federal phosphate leases (Manning Creek No. I-27512 and Deer Creek No. I-01441, known, respectively as the Panel F and Panel G lease areas). The leases are administered y the Bureau of Land Management, while the surfaces of the leases are managed by the U.S. Forest Service as part of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. If approved, mining would begin in Panel F in 2006-2007 at the same time mining was completed in the existing Panel B. The proposed mining would commence in Panel F with mining being initiated in Panel G a few years later. All mining and reclamation activities would be completed over a period of approximately 16 years to ensure reclamation meets federal requirements. The mining activities would include construction of a new haul/access road extending south from Panel E across South Fork Sage Creek to the Manning Lease. Open-pit mining operations would commence within this lease and would generally proved from north to south in Panel F. Overburden removed from the north end of Panel F would initially be hauled north to complete backfilling of 29 acres in Panel E; overburden would also be placed in a 38-acre external overburden fill. The rest of the overburden would be used as backfill in the Panel F open pit. A total of 138 acres of the southern-most part of Panel F would be located in a lease modification to be added to Lease I-27512 and the northern-most two acres of the open pit would be located on another proposed lease modification to the same lease. After several years of mining in Panel F, a haul access road and power line would be built to connect Panels F and G. A 100-gallon-per-minute water supply well would be drilled at Panel G. Initial overburden from the open pit at Panel G would be placed in a 74-are overburden fill southwest of the pit and a 64-acre external overburden fill located east of the pit. The rest of the overburden would be sued as a pit backfill. In addition to the proposed action, seven mining alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would allow both lease modifications, prohibit placement of seleniferous overburden external to the pit backfills, provide for placement of an infiltration barrier cap over all areas of seleniferous overburden disposal, location of the power line for panels F and G along the selected haul/access road corridors; and use of the existing East Haul Access road to transport personnel and materials into Panel G and for hauling phosphate ore from the panel to the existing Smoky Canyon mill. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the Simply mining operations would continue economically viable development of the phosphate resources within the federal mineral leases at the site and to supply phosphate ore to Simplot's fertilizer plant. Mining would remove barriers to aquifer recharge in the panel areas. Mining would significantly boost, or at least maintain, employment in the area and otherwise boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance from all operations would cover 1,340 acres, including: for Panel F), 435 acres of pits, 67 acres of roads, 38 acres of external overburden, and 52 acres of other disturbance such as settling ponds and ditches, topsoil stockpiles, and a power line; and, for Panel G, 328 acres of pits, 217 acres of roads, 138 acres of external overburden fills, and 65 acres of other disturbance such as those for Panel F. Vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for big game and migratory birds, would be destroyed and erosion in the immediate area would be exacerbated. Approximately 475 feet of perennial stream channel, 21,030 feet of intermittent stream channel, and 65 acres of aquatic influence zones would be disturbed. Solute concentrations in groundwater would increase in the area, degrading water quality somewhat. Historically significant livestock grazing and recreational uses on affected lands would be eliminated. Approximately 1,040 acres within the Sage Creek Road less Area and 60 acres within the Meade Peak Road less Area would be disturbed by mining and road construction. Two arborglyph sites and a historic cabin would be affected by mining activities. Small portions of wetland areas would be displaced. Treaty rights of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe would be abridged due to road construction and mining. Air pollutant emissions, primarily exhaust and dust, would amount to 8,422 tons over the project life. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050546, 987 pages, December 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 15
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Fertilizers
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Caribou-Targhee National Forest
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384056?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMOKY+CANYON+MINE%2C+PANELS+F+%26+G%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=SMOKY+CANYON+MINE%2C+PANELS+F+%26+G%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH SHORE ROAD, SWAIN AND GRAHAM COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - NORTH SHORE ROAD, SWAIN AND GRAHAM COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA.
AN  - 36381074; 11863-050548_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement of North Shore road in Swain County, North Carolina is proposed. The project corridor includes a potion of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and the record of decision for this EIS process would serve as a general management plan amendment for the park if an alternative that is not consistent with the current park direction was adopted. In 1943, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Department of the Interior, and the state of North Carolina, and Swain County entered into a memorandum of agreement that dealt with the creation of Fontana Dam and Reservoir and the resultant flooding of lands and roads within the county. As part of the agreement, 44,170 acres of land were transferred to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and made part of the national park. The agreement contained a provision by which the state was to construct a road from Bryson City to the national park boundary, and the BLM was to construct a road through the park along the north shore of the newly formed Fontana Reservoir to replace flooded NC 288. The state completed its obligation n 1959, but the BLM lacked funding for road construction. Between 1948 and 1970, the Department of the Interior, through the National Park Service, built 7.2 miles of the proposed read, leaving 30 miles unconstructed. During the early construction efforts, it was discovered that the route of the road would be through unstable terrain, resulting in the possibility of landslides during and after construction and requiring more extensive engineering than originally supposed. A stratum subject to acid leaching was also encountered. In October 2000, Congress appropriated $16 million for construction or, and improvements to, North Shore Road. In the meantime, environmental groups have contended that construction and use of the road would harm park resources; certain of these entities support a cash settlement in lieu of the road. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives include the monetary settlement proposal, development of a Laurel Branch Picnic Area and associated access road; a partial-build alternative extending eight miles from the existing tunnel west to the vicinity of the former Bushnell settlement, and one full-build alternatives. Two road types are under consideration, including a paved principal park road and a gravel primitive park road. Estimated costs of the monetary settlement, Laurel Branch alternative are $52 million and $13.7 million, respectively. The cost of partial-build alternative extending to Bushnell is estimated to range from $92.2 million to $148.6 million, with the low figure applying to the primitive park road design and the high figure applying to the principal park road design. The estimated costs of the full-build alternatives range from $344.9 million to $589.7 million, the figures representing the primitive and principal park road options, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The construction of the road would allow families that lived along the north shore of the Little Tennessee River prior to its acquisition by the national park access to old home sites and family cemeteries. The road would also provide economic benefits to the county via increased tourist access. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional traffic in the area would affect the pristine natural appearance of the corridor along the lake. Under the build alternatives, from eight to 906 acres would be reclassified from natural environment to a transportation subzone. Vegetation and wildlife habitat, including habitat for migratory birds and the federally protected bald eagle and Indiana bat, would be permanently displaced in the construction corridor. Six historic structures and several archaeological sites could be affected by construction activities and roadway use. The Appalachian National Scenic Trail would be affected. All build alternatives would encroach on the 100-year floodplain at major stream crossings. Approximately 69 acres of wetlands would lie within the corridor affected by the project, and lakes and streams would also suffer from increased runoff and the associated pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050548, 1,091 pages and maps, CD-ROM, December 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 2
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: DES 05-75
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Cemeteries
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Highways
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Roads
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - North Carolina
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381074?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+SHORE+ROAD%2C+SWAIN+AND+GRAHAM+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=NORTH+SHORE+ROAD%2C+SWAIN+AND+GRAHAM+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 88 of 108]
T2  - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 36371844; 050035D-050546_0088
AB  - PURPOSE: Extension of the current open pit phosphate mining operations of the Smoky Canyon Mine of Caribou County, Idaho is proposed by the mine's operator, J.R. Simplot Company. The mine would be extended into two federal phosphate leases (Manning Creek No. I-27512 and Deer Creek No. I-01441, known, respectively as the Panel F and Panel G lease areas). The leases are administered y the Bureau of Land Management, while the surfaces of the leases are managed by the U.S. Forest Service as part of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. If approved, mining would begin in Panel F in 2006-2007 at the same time mining was completed in the existing Panel B. The proposed mining would commence in Panel F with mining being initiated in Panel G a few years later. All mining and reclamation activities would be completed over a period of approximately 16 years to ensure reclamation meets federal requirements. The mining activities would include construction of a new haul/access road extending south from Panel E across South Fork Sage Creek to the Manning Lease. Open-pit mining operations would commence within this lease and would generally proved from north to south in Panel F. Overburden removed from the north end of Panel F would initially be hauled north to complete backfilling of 29 acres in Panel E; overburden would also be placed in a 38-acre external overburden fill. The rest of the overburden would be used as backfill in the Panel F open pit. A total of 138 acres of the southern-most part of Panel F would be located in a lease modification to be added to Lease I-27512 and the northern-most two acres of the open pit would be located on another proposed lease modification to the same lease. After several years of mining in Panel F, a haul access road and power line would be built to connect Panels F and G. A 100-gallon-per-minute water supply well would be drilled at Panel G. Initial overburden from the open pit at Panel G would be placed in a 74-are overburden fill southwest of the pit and a 64-acre external overburden fill located east of the pit. The rest of the overburden would be sued as a pit backfill. In addition to the proposed action, seven mining alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would allow both lease modifications, prohibit placement of seleniferous overburden external to the pit backfills, provide for placement of an infiltration barrier cap over all areas of seleniferous overburden disposal, location of the power line for panels F and G along the selected haul/access road corridors; and use of the existing East Haul Access road to transport personnel and materials into Panel G and for hauling phosphate ore from the panel to the existing Smoky Canyon mill. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the Simply mining operations would continue economically viable development of the phosphate resources within the federal mineral leases at the site and to supply phosphate ore to Simplot's fertilizer plant. Mining would remove barriers to aquifer recharge in the panel areas. Mining would significantly boost, or at least maintain, employment in the area and otherwise boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance from all operations would cover 1,340 acres, including: for Panel F), 435 acres of pits, 67 acres of roads, 38 acres of external overburden, and 52 acres of other disturbance such as settling ponds and ditches, topsoil stockpiles, and a power line; and, for Panel G, 328 acres of pits, 217 acres of roads, 138 acres of external overburden fills, and 65 acres of other disturbance such as those for Panel F. Vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for big game and migratory birds, would be destroyed and erosion in the immediate area would be exacerbated. Approximately 475 feet of perennial stream channel, 21,030 feet of intermittent stream channel, and 65 acres of aquatic influence zones would be disturbed. Solute concentrations in groundwater would increase in the area, degrading water quality somewhat. Historically significant livestock grazing and recreational uses on affected lands would be eliminated. Approximately 1,040 acres within the Sage Creek Road less Area and 60 acres within the Meade Peak Road less Area would be disturbed by mining and road construction. Two arborglyph sites and a historic cabin would be affected by mining activities. Small portions of wetland areas would be displaced. Treaty rights of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe would be abridged due to road construction and mining. Air pollutant emissions, primarily exhaust and dust, would amount to 8,422 tons over the project life. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050546, 987 pages, December 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
VL  - 88
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Fertilizers
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Caribou-Targhee National Forest
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371844?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMOKY+CANYON+MINE%2C+PANELS+F+%26+G%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=SMOKY+CANYON+MINE%2C+PANELS+F+%26+G%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-06-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NORTH SHORE ROAD, SWAIN AND GRAHAM COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA.
AN  - 16356449; 11863
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement of North Shore road in Swain County, North Carolina is proposed. The project corridor includes a potion of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and the record of decision for this EIS process would serve as a general management plan amendment for the park if an alternative that is not consistent with the current park direction was adopted. In 1943, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Department of the Interior, and the state of North Carolina, and Swain County entered into a memorandum of agreement that dealt with the creation of Fontana Dam and Reservoir and the resultant flooding of lands and roads within the county. As part of the agreement, 44,170 acres of land were transferred to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and made part of the national park. The agreement contained a provision by which the state was to construct a road from Bryson City to the national park boundary, and the BLM was to construct a road through the park along the north shore of the newly formed Fontana Reservoir to replace flooded NC 288. The state completed its obligation n 1959, but the BLM lacked funding for road construction. Between 1948 and 1970, the Department of the Interior, through the National Park Service, built 7.2 miles of the proposed read, leaving 30 miles unconstructed. During the early construction efforts, it was discovered that the route of the road would be through unstable terrain, resulting in the possibility of landslides during and after construction and requiring more extensive engineering than originally supposed. A stratum subject to acid leaching was also encountered. In October 2000, Congress appropriated $16 million for construction or, and improvements to, North Shore Road. In the meantime, environmental groups have contended that construction and use of the road would harm park resources; certain of these entities support a cash settlement in lieu of the road. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives include the monetary settlement proposal, development of a Laurel Branch Picnic Area and associated access road; a partial-build alternative extending eight miles from the existing tunnel west to the vicinity of the former Bushnell settlement, and one full-build alternatives. Two road types are under consideration, including a paved principal park road and a gravel primitive park road. Estimated costs of the monetary settlement, Laurel Branch alternative are $52 million and $13.7 million, respectively. The cost of partial-build alternative extending to Bushnell is estimated to range from $92.2 million to $148.6 million, with the low figure applying to the primitive park road design and the high figure applying to the principal park road design. The estimated costs of the full-build alternatives range from $344.9 million to $589.7 million, the figures representing the primitive and principal park road options, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The construction of the road would allow families that lived along the north shore of the Little Tennessee River prior to its acquisition by the national park access to old home sites and family cemeteries. The road would also provide economic benefits to the county via increased tourist access. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional traffic in the area would affect the pristine natural appearance of the corridor along the lake. Under the build alternatives, from eight to 906 acres would be reclassified from natural environment to a transportation subzone. Vegetation and wildlife habitat, including habitat for migratory birds and the federally protected bald eagle and Indiana bat, would be permanently displaced in the construction corridor. Six historic structures and several archaeological sites could be affected by construction activities and roadway use. The Appalachian National Scenic Trail would be affected. All build alternatives would encroach on the 100-year floodplain at major stream crossings. Approximately 69 acres of wetlands would lie within the corridor affected by the project, and lakes and streams would also suffer from increased runoff and the associated pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050548, 1,091 pages and maps, CD-ROM, December 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: DES 05-75
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cost Assessments
KW  - Cemeteries
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Highways
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Reservoirs
KW  - Roads
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Trails
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - North Carolina
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16356449?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+SHORE+ROAD%2C+SWAIN+AND+GRAHAM+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=NORTH+SHORE+ROAD%2C+SWAIN+AND+GRAHAM+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO.
AN  - 16343920; 11861
AB  - PURPOSE: Extension of the current open pit phosphate mining operations of the Smoky Canyon Mine of Caribou County, Idaho is proposed by the mine's operator, J.R. Simplot Company. The mine would be extended into two federal phosphate leases (Manning Creek No. I-27512 and Deer Creek No. I-01441, known, respectively as the Panel F and Panel G lease areas). The leases are administered y the Bureau of Land Management, while the surfaces of the leases are managed by the U.S. Forest Service as part of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. If approved, mining would begin in Panel F in 2006-2007 at the same time mining was completed in the existing Panel B. The proposed mining would commence in Panel F with mining being initiated in Panel G a few years later. All mining and reclamation activities would be completed over a period of approximately 16 years to ensure reclamation meets federal requirements. The mining activities would include construction of a new haul/access road extending south from Panel E across South Fork Sage Creek to the Manning Lease. Open-pit mining operations would commence within this lease and would generally proved from north to south in Panel F. Overburden removed from the north end of Panel F would initially be hauled north to complete backfilling of 29 acres in Panel E; overburden would also be placed in a 38-acre external overburden fill. The rest of the overburden would be used as backfill in the Panel F open pit. A total of 138 acres of the southern-most part of Panel F would be located in a lease modification to be added to Lease I-27512 and the northern-most two acres of the open pit would be located on another proposed lease modification to the same lease. After several years of mining in Panel F, a haul access road and power line would be built to connect Panels F and G. A 100-gallon-per-minute water supply well would be drilled at Panel G. Initial overburden from the open pit at Panel G would be placed in a 74-are overburden fill southwest of the pit and a 64-acre external overburden fill located east of the pit. The rest of the overburden would be sued as a pit backfill. In addition to the proposed action, seven mining alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would allow both lease modifications, prohibit placement of seleniferous overburden external to the pit backfills, provide for placement of an infiltration barrier cap over all areas of seleniferous overburden disposal, location of the power line for panels F and G along the selected haul/access road corridors; and use of the existing East Haul Access road to transport personnel and materials into Panel G and for hauling phosphate ore from the panel to the existing Smoky Canyon mill. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the Simply mining operations would continue economically viable development of the phosphate resources within the federal mineral leases at the site and to supply phosphate ore to Simplot's fertilizer plant. Mining would remove barriers to aquifer recharge in the panel areas. Mining would significantly boost, or at least maintain, employment in the area and otherwise boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance from all operations would cover 1,340 acres, including: for Panel F), 435 acres of pits, 67 acres of roads, 38 acres of external overburden, and 52 acres of other disturbance such as settling ponds and ditches, topsoil stockpiles, and a power line; and, for Panel G, 328 acres of pits, 217 acres of roads, 138 acres of external overburden fills, and 65 acres of other disturbance such as those for Panel F. Vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for big game and migratory birds, would be destroyed and erosion in the immediate area would be exacerbated. Approximately 475 feet of perennial stream channel, 21,030 feet of intermittent stream channel, and 65 acres of aquatic influence zones would be disturbed. Solute concentrations in groundwater would increase in the area, degrading water quality somewhat. Historically significant livestock grazing and recreational uses on affected lands would be eliminated. Approximately 1,040 acres within the Sage Creek Road less Area and 60 acres within the Meade Peak Road less Area would be disturbed by mining and road construction. Two arborglyph sites and a historic cabin would be affected by mining activities. Small portions of wetland areas would be displaced. Treaty rights of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe would be abridged due to road construction and mining. Air pollutant emissions, primarily exhaust and dust, would amount to 8,422 tons over the project life. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 050546, 987 pages, December 23, 2005
PY  - 2005
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Employment
KW  - Fertilizers
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Roads
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Caribou-Targhee National Forest
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16343920?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMOKY+CANYON+MINE%2C+PANELS+F+%26+G%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=SMOKY+CANYON+MINE%2C+PANELS+F+%26+G%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho; DA
N1  - Date revised - 2006-05-01
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 23, 2005
N1  - Last updated - 2014-01-30
ER  -