TY - RPRT T1 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 108 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36392360; 050035D-050546_0108 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 - 108 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/36392360?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 105 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36391956; 050035D-050546_0105 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 - 105 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/36391956?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 8 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36391161; 050035D-050546_0008 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 - 8 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/36391161?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 58 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36390895; 050035D-050546_0058 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 - 58 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/36390895?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 89 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36390846; 050035D-050546_0089 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 - 89 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/36390846?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 82 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36390795; 050035D-050546_0082 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 - 82 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/36390795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 36 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36390337; 050035D-050546_0036 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 - 36 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/36390337?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 10 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36390309; 050035D-050546_0010 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 - 10 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/36390309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 45 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36390123; 050035D-050546_0045 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 - 45 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/36390123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 6 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36390050; 050035D-050546_0006 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 - 6 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/36390050?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 35 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36390012; 050035D-050546_0035 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 - 35 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/36390012?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 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 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 25 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36389776; 050035D-050546_0025 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 - 25 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/36389776?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 33 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36389541; 050035D-050546_0033 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 - 33 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/36389541?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 46 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36389432; 050035D-050546_0046 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 - 46 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/36389432?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 5 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36389303; 050035D-050546_0005 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 - 5 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/36389303?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 61 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36389266; 050035D-050546_0061 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 - 61 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/36389266?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 43 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36389121; 050035D-050546_0043 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 - 43 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/36389121?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 26 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36388974; 050035D-050546_0026 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 - 26 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/36388974?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 40 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36388784; 050035D-050546_0040 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 - 40 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/36388784?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 18 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36388547; 050035D-050546_0018 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 - 18 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/36388547?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 42 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36387929; 050035D-050546_0042 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 - 42 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/36387929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 37 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36387588; 050035D-050546_0037 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 - 37 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/36387588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 17 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36387380; 050035D-050546_0017 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 - 17 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/36387380?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 20 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36387282; 050035D-050546_0020 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 - 20 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/36387282?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 16 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36387099; 050035D-050546_0016 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 - 16 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/36387099?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 107 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36386723; 050035D-050546_0107 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 - 107 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/36386723?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 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 29 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36385436; 050035D-050546_0029 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 - 29 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/36385436?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 27 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36385394; 050035D-050546_0027 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 - 27 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/36385394?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 39 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36384956; 050035D-050546_0039 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 - 39 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/36384956?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 41 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36384661; 050035D-050546_0041 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 - 41 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/36384661?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 19 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36384311; 050035D-050546_0019 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 - 19 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/36384311?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 63 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36383455; 050035D-050546_0063 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 - 63 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/36383455?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 55 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36381948; 050035D-050546_0055 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 - 55 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/36381948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 81 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36381674; 050035D-050546_0081 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 - 81 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/36381674?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 72 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36381188; 050035D-050546_0072 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 - 72 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/36381188?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 100 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36381128; 050035D-050546_0100 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 - 100 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/36381128?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 52 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36381040; 050035D-050546_0052 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 - 52 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/36381040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 71 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36380961; 050035D-050546_0071 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 - 71 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/36380961?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 44 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36380795; 050035D-050546_0044 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 - 44 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/36380795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 66 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36380713; 050035D-050546_0066 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 - 66 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/36380713?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 93 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36380686; 050035D-050546_0093 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 - 93 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/36380686?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 14 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36380537; 050035D-050546_0014 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 - 14 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/36380537?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 64 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36380457; 050035D-050546_0064 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 - 64 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/36380457?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 65 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36380283; 050035D-050546_0065 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 - 65 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/36380283?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 74 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36380135; 050035D-050546_0074 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 - 74 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/36380135?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 102 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36379401; 050035D-050546_0102 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 - 102 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/36379401?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 86 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36379074; 050035D-050546_0086 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 - 86 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/36379074?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 95 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36379049; 050035D-050546_0095 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 - 95 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/36379049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Science+%28Washington%29&rft.atitle=Spreading+Dead+Zones+and+Consequences+for+Marine+Ecosystems&rft.au=Diaz%2C+Robert+J%3BRosenberg%2C+Rutger&rft.aulast=Diaz&rft.aufirst=Robert&rft.date=2008-08-15&rft.volume=321&rft.issue=5891&rft.spage=926&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Science+%28Washington%29&rft.issn=00368075&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 11 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36379026; 050035D-050546_0011 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 - 11 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/36379026?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 101 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36378921; 050035D-050546_0101 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 - 101 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/36378921?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 84 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36378896; 050035D-050546_0084 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 - 84 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/36378896?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Geo-Marine+Letters&rft.atitle=The+20th-century+development+and+expansion+of+Louisiana+shelf+hypoxia%2C+Gulf+of+Mexico&rft.au=Osterman%2C+Lisa+E%3BPoore%2C+Richard+Z%3BSwarzenski%2C+Peter+W%3BSenn%2C+David+B%3BDiMarco%2C+Steven+F&rft.aulast=Osterman&rft.aufirst=Lisa&rft.date=2009-12-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=405&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geo-Marine+Letters&rft.issn=02760460&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs00367-009-0158-2 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 57 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36378839; 050035D-050546_0057 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 - 57 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/36378839?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Riedel%2C+B%3BZuschin%2C+M%3BStachowitsch%2C+M&rft.aulast=Riedel&rft.aufirst=B&rft.date=2008-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=73&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Dead+zones%3A+a+future+worst-case+scenario+for+Northern+Adriatic+biodiversity&rft.title=Dead+zones%3A+a+future+worst-case+scenario+for+Northern+Adriatic+biodiversity&rft.issn=17265886&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 56 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36378645; 050035D-050546_0056 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 - 56 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/36378645?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Wood%2C+J+D%3BRamsey%2C+J+S%3BWeishar%2C+L+L&rft.aulast=Wood&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=1996-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=117&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Beach+nourishment+along+Nantucket+Sound%3A+A+tale+of+two+beaches&rft.title=Beach+nourishment+along+Nantucket+Sound%3A+A+tale+of+two+beaches&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 98 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36378604; 050035D-050546_0098 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 - 98 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/36378604?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Marine+Environmental+Research&rft.atitle=Region-wide+impairment+of+Atlantic+croaker+testicular+development+and+sperm+production+in+the+northern+Gulf+of+Mexico+hypoxic+dead+zone&rft.au=Thomas%2C+Peter%3BRahman%2C+MdSaydur&rft.aulast=Thomas&rft.aufirst=Peter&rft.date=2010-03-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=&rft.spage=S59&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Marine+Environmental+Research&rft.issn=01411136&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.marenvres.2009.10.017 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 83 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36378488; 050035D-050546_0083 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 - 83 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/36378488?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 87 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36378370; 050035D-050546_0087 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 - 87 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/36378370?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 3 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36377984; 050035D-050546_0003 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 - 3 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/36377984?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 28 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36375041; 050035D-050546_0028 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 - 28 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/36375041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=P4&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Modern+shelf+anoxia+and+dead+zones%3A+signs+of+change+for+the+worse+%28Abstract+only%29&rft.title=Modern+shelf+anoxia+and+dead+zones%3A+signs+of+change+for+the+worse+%28Abstract+only%29&rft.issn=0373434X&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 21 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36374927; 050035D-050546_0021 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 - 21 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/36374927?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-01&rft.volume=59&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1487&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Revista+de+Biologia+Tropical&rft.issn=00347744&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 103 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36374897; 050035D-050546_0103 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 - 103 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/36374897?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Posidonia+oceanica+beach-cast+litter+in+Mediterranean+beaches%3A+a+coastal+videomonitoring+study&rft.au=Gomez-Pujol%2C+Lluis%3BOrfila%2C+Alejandro%3BAlvarez-Ellacuria%2C+Amaya%3BTerrados%2C+Jorge%3BTintore%2C+Joaquin&rft.aulast=Gomez-Pujol&rft.aufirst=Lluis&rft.date=2013-01-01&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=65&rft.spage=1768&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&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 24 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36374837; 050035D-050546_0024 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 - 24 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/36374837?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 91 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36374608; 050035D-050546_0091 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 - 91 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/36374608?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2003-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=325&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Louisiana+environmental+modeling+system+for+hypoxia+related+issues&rft.title=Louisiana+environmental+modeling+system+for+hypoxia+related+issues&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 9 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36374305; 050035D-050546_0009 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 - 9 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/36374305?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Transactions+of+oceanology+and+limnology%2FHaiyang+Huzhao+Tongbao.+Qingdao&rft.atitle=A+study+of+the+relation+between+the+distribution+of+dead+shells+of+Ruditapes+philippinarum+and+the+ecological+environment+in+Jiaozhou+Bay&rft.au=Wu%2C+Yaoquan%3BZhang%2C+Baolin%3BSun%2C+Daoyuan%3BLu%2C+Xijin&rft.aulast=Wu&rft.aufirst=Yaoquan&rft.date=1993-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=61&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Transactions+of+oceanology+and+limnology%2FHaiyang+Huzhao+Tongbao.+Qingdao&rft.issn=10036482&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 92 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36374239; 050035D-050546_0092 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 - 92 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/36374239?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Walsh%2C+D%3BHawley%2C+A+K%3BZaikova%2C+E%3BHowes%2C+C+G%3BSong%2C+Y+C%3BNorbeck%2C+A%3BBrewer%2C+H+M%3BPasa-Tolic%2C+L%3BTringe%2C+S%3BTortell%2C+P+D%3BHallam%2C+S+J&rft.aulast=Walsh&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2010-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Community+proteogenomics+of+an+oceanic+dead+zone+microbiome&rft.title=Community+proteogenomics+of+an+oceanic+dead+zone+microbiome&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 7 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36374078; 050035D-050546_0007 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 - 7 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/36374078?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 48 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36373907; 050035D-050546_0048 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 - 48 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/36373907?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 60 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36373895; 050035D-050546_0060 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 - 60 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/36373895?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 54 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36373793; 050035D-050546_0054 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 - 54 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/36373793?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 32 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36373703; 050035D-050546_0032 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 - 32 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/36373703?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 31 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36373567; 050035D-050546_0031 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 - 31 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/36373567?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 51 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36373387; 050035D-050546_0051 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 - 51 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/36373387?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 2 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36373011; 050035D-050546_0002 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 - 2 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/36373011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 49 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36373004; 050035D-050546_0049 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 - 49 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/36373004?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 47 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36372850; 050035D-050546_0047 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 - 47 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/36372850?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 68 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36372779; 050035D-050546_0068 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 - 68 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/36372779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 - SOUTH ACCESS TO THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, DOYLE DRIVE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - SOUTH ACCESS TO THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, DOYLE DRIVE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36372642; 060155D-050545_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Doyle Drive (Route 101) to improve south access to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, San Francisco County, California is proposed. The bridge connects San Francisco and marine counties across the San Francisco Bay. The roadway also provides limited access to the Presidio of San Francisco. Doyle Drive is located within the Presidio, a national historic landmark, providing access to such cultural and natural features as the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the Presidio, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Palace of Fine Arts. Existing Doyle Drive, which was constructed nearly 70 years ago, is currently nearing the end of its useful life. Regular maintenance, seismic retrofitting, and rehabilitation activities have kept the structure safe, but a long term solution to these problems is necessary. The eastern portion of the corridor is located in a Liquefaction zone. Action A No-Build Alternative and two build alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The first action alterative, which would involve reconstruction of the existing facility, would replace the 1,519-foot high viaduct and the 3,730-foot long, low viaduct with wider structures that would meet the current seismic and structural design standards. The second action alternative would replace the existing facility with a new six-lane parkway, with an eastbound auxiliary lane, extending between the Park Presidio six-lane facility and the new Presidio access at Girard Road. The new facility would consist of two 11-foot lanes and one 12-foot outside lane in each direction, with 9.75-foot outside shoulders and five-foot inside shoulders. In addition, an 11-foot auxiliary lane would run along southbound Doyle Drive from the Park Presidio interchange to the Girard Road exit ramp. The width of the proposed landscaped median would vary from 16 feet to 41 feet. The Veterans Boulevard interchange would be reconfigured. Other design chances would be implemented. Estimated cost of the replacement alternative ranges from $552.8 million to $585.6 million, while the cost estimates for parkway alternative ranges from range from $689.9 million to $701.2 million. Construction of an optional ramp would increase the cost of the parkway alternative by $8.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the seismic, structural, and traffic safety of the roadway, maintaining the functions of the Doyle Drive corridor as part of the regional and municipal transportation network. The natural, cultural, an scenic aspects of the facility would be preserved. Roadway design would minimize the impacts of noise and other pollution from the Doyle Drive corridor on natural areas and recreational qualities at Crissy Field and other areas adjacent to the project area. Intermodal vehicular accessibility would be enhanced, a more appropriate parkway concept would replace the current design of the facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the removal of one to 13 building, 1.5 to 12.6 acres of park and recreational lands, 6.75 to 52.45 acres of natural communities, and 0.54 to 0.88 acre of jurisdictional wetlands; wildlife habitat and skunkweeds and gumplants would be removed, and the corridor would be more prone to invasion by weedy alien plant life. Under the parkway alternative, the project would reduce the area for possible Crissy Marsh Expansion. Up to 118 additional parking spaces could be required within the local community. Area aesthetic could be marred by project structures and pavements, and the removal of existing Doyle Drive and associated and nearby features would alter the historic setting of the Presidio and the local neighborhood Traffic-generated noise would approach of exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 24 to 34 sensitive receptors along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050545, 861 pages and maps, December 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-02-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372642?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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=SOUTH+ACCESS+TO+THE+GOLDEN+GATE+BRIDGE%2C+DOYLE+DRIVE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+ACCESS+TO+THE+GOLDEN+GATE+BRIDGE%2C+DOYLE+DRIVE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 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 67 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36372406; 050035D-050546_0067 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 - 67 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/36372406?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 22 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36372365; 050035D-050546_0022 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 - 22 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/36372365?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 73 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36372075; 050035D-050546_0073 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 - 73 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/36372075?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 1 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36371947; 050035D-050546_0001 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 - 1 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/36371947?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 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 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 85 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36371540; 050035D-050546_0085 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 - 85 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/36371540?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 104 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36371326; 050035D-050546_0104 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 - 104 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/36371326?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 62 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36371183; 050035D-050546_0062 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 - 62 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/36371183?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 53 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36370917; 050035D-050546_0053 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 - 53 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/36370917?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 80 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36370809; 050035D-050546_0080 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 - 80 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/36370809?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 30 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36370747; 050035D-050546_0030 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 - 30 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/36370747?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 99 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36370341; 050035D-050546_0099 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 - 99 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/36370341?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 50 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36370270; 050035D-050546_0050 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 - 50 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/36370270?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 94 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36370178; 050035D-050546_0094 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 - 94 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/36370178?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 38 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36370122; 050035D-050546_0038 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 - 38 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/36370122?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 23 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36369847; 050035D-050546_0023 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 - 23 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/36369847?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 - SOUTH ACCESS TO THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, DOYLE DRIVE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - SOUTH ACCESS TO THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, DOYLE DRIVE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36369513; 060155D-050545_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Doyle Drive (Route 101) to improve south access to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, San Francisco County, California is proposed. The bridge connects San Francisco and marine counties across the San Francisco Bay. The roadway also provides limited access to the Presidio of San Francisco. Doyle Drive is located within the Presidio, a national historic landmark, providing access to such cultural and natural features as the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the Presidio, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Palace of Fine Arts. Existing Doyle Drive, which was constructed nearly 70 years ago, is currently nearing the end of its useful life. Regular maintenance, seismic retrofitting, and rehabilitation activities have kept the structure safe, but a long term solution to these problems is necessary. The eastern portion of the corridor is located in a Liquefaction zone. Action A No-Build Alternative and two build alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The first action alterative, which would involve reconstruction of the existing facility, would replace the 1,519-foot high viaduct and the 3,730-foot long, low viaduct with wider structures that would meet the current seismic and structural design standards. The second action alternative would replace the existing facility with a new six-lane parkway, with an eastbound auxiliary lane, extending between the Park Presidio six-lane facility and the new Presidio access at Girard Road. The new facility would consist of two 11-foot lanes and one 12-foot outside lane in each direction, with 9.75-foot outside shoulders and five-foot inside shoulders. In addition, an 11-foot auxiliary lane would run along southbound Doyle Drive from the Park Presidio interchange to the Girard Road exit ramp. The width of the proposed landscaped median would vary from 16 feet to 41 feet. The Veterans Boulevard interchange would be reconfigured. Other design chances would be implemented. Estimated cost of the replacement alternative ranges from $552.8 million to $585.6 million, while the cost estimates for parkway alternative ranges from range from $689.9 million to $701.2 million. Construction of an optional ramp would increase the cost of the parkway alternative by $8.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the seismic, structural, and traffic safety of the roadway, maintaining the functions of the Doyle Drive corridor as part of the regional and municipal transportation network. The natural, cultural, an scenic aspects of the facility would be preserved. Roadway design would minimize the impacts of noise and other pollution from the Doyle Drive corridor on natural areas and recreational qualities at Crissy Field and other areas adjacent to the project area. Intermodal vehicular accessibility would be enhanced, a more appropriate parkway concept would replace the current design of the facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the removal of one to 13 building, 1.5 to 12.6 acres of park and recreational lands, 6.75 to 52.45 acres of natural communities, and 0.54 to 0.88 acre of jurisdictional wetlands; wildlife habitat and skunkweeds and gumplants would be removed, and the corridor would be more prone to invasion by weedy alien plant life. Under the parkway alternative, the project would reduce the area for possible Crissy Marsh Expansion. Up to 118 additional parking spaces could be required within the local community. Area aesthetic could be marred by project structures and pavements, and the removal of existing Doyle Drive and associated and nearby features would alter the historic setting of the Presidio and the local neighborhood Traffic-generated noise would approach of exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 24 to 34 sensitive receptors along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050545, 861 pages and maps, December 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-02-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369513?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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=SOUTH+ACCESS+TO+THE+GOLDEN+GATE+BRIDGE%2C+DOYLE+DRIVE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+ACCESS+TO+THE+GOLDEN+GATE+BRIDGE%2C+DOYLE+DRIVE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 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 76 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36369393; 050035D-050546_0076 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 - 76 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/36369393?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 75 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36369255; 050035D-050546_0075 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 - 75 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/36369255?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 70 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36366659; 050035D-050546_0070 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 - 70 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/36366659?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 69 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36366459; 050035D-050546_0069 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 - 69 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/36366459?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 79 of 108] T2 - SMOKY CANYON MINE, PANELS F & G, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36366163; 050035D-050546_0079 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 - 79 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/36366163?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 - SOUTH ACCESS TO THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, DOYLE DRIVE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16355742; 11860 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Doyle Drive (Route 101) to improve south access to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, San Francisco County, California is proposed. The bridge connects San Francisco and marine counties across the San Francisco Bay. The roadway also provides limited access to the Presidio of San Francisco. Doyle Drive is located within the Presidio, a national historic landmark, providing access to such cultural and natural features as the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the Presidio, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Palace of Fine Arts. Existing Doyle Drive, which was constructed nearly 70 years ago, is currently nearing the end of its useful life. Regular maintenance, seismic retrofitting, and rehabilitation activities have kept the structure safe, but a long term solution to these problems is necessary. The eastern portion of the corridor is located in a Liquefaction zone. Action A No-Build Alternative and two build alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The first action alterative, which would involve reconstruction of the existing facility, would replace the 1,519-foot high viaduct and the 3,730-foot long, low viaduct with wider structures that would meet the current seismic and structural design standards. The second action alternative would replace the existing facility with a new six-lane parkway, with an eastbound auxiliary lane, extending between the Park Presidio six-lane facility and the new Presidio access at Girard Road. The new facility would consist of two 11-foot lanes and one 12-foot outside lane in each direction, with 9.75-foot outside shoulders and five-foot inside shoulders. In addition, an 11-foot auxiliary lane would run along southbound Doyle Drive from the Park Presidio interchange to the Girard Road exit ramp. The width of the proposed landscaped median would vary from 16 feet to 41 feet. The Veterans Boulevard interchange would be reconfigured. Other design chances would be implemented. Estimated cost of the replacement alternative ranges from $552.8 million to $585.6 million, while the cost estimates for parkway alternative ranges from range from $689.9 million to $701.2 million. Construction of an optional ramp would increase the cost of the parkway alternative by $8.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the seismic, structural, and traffic safety of the roadway, maintaining the functions of the Doyle Drive corridor as part of the regional and municipal transportation network. The natural, cultural, an scenic aspects of the facility would be preserved. Roadway design would minimize the impacts of noise and other pollution from the Doyle Drive corridor on natural areas and recreational qualities at Crissy Field and other areas adjacent to the project area. Intermodal vehicular accessibility would be enhanced, a more appropriate parkway concept would replace the current design of the facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the removal of one to 13 building, 1.5 to 12.6 acres of park and recreational lands, 6.75 to 52.45 acres of natural communities, and 0.54 to 0.88 acre of jurisdictional wetlands; wildlife habitat and skunkweeds and gumplants would be removed, and the corridor would be more prone to invasion by weedy alien plant life. Under the parkway alternative, the project would reduce the area for possible Crissy Marsh Expansion. Up to 118 additional parking spaces could be required within the local community. Area aesthetic could be marred by project structures and pavements, and the removal of existing Doyle Drive and associated and nearby features would alter the historic setting of the Presidio and the local neighborhood Traffic-generated noise would approach of exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 24 to 34 sensitive receptors along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050545, 861 pages and maps, December 23, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-02-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16355742?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&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=SOUTH+ACCESS+TO+THE+GOLDEN+GATE+BRIDGE%2C+DOYLE+DRIVE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+ACCESS+TO+THE+GOLDEN+GATE+BRIDGE%2C+DOYLE+DRIVE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANASSAS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK, FAIRFAX AND PRINCE WILLIAMS COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - MANASSAS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK, FAIRFAX AND PRINCE WILLIAMS COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36382673; 060108D-050543_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan for the Manassas National Battlefield Park in Fairfax and Prince Williams counties, Virginia is proposed. The park, which encompasses 5,71 acres 25 miles west of Washington, D.C., preserves the scene of two major Civil War battles, in 1861 and 1862. The 1861 battle was the first major land battle of the war, while the 1862 battle brought the Confederacy to the height of its power and opened the way for the first Confederate campaign in the North. Heavy commuter and truck traffic on Portions of US 29 and VA Route 234 detract from visitor enjoyment, safety, and interpretive activities. Current vegetation patterns are reminiscent of wartime patterns, but are often different from exact wartime conditions that influenced the strategies and tactics of the two battles. Key issues identified during scoping include the quality and level of interpretation deviated to each of the two battles, traffic levels on US 29 and VA Route 234, the preservation and rehabilitation of wartime and other historic structures and sites, recreational uses of the park, future operational requirements, and the relationship between current vegetation patterns and the park's overall interpretive goals. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would be based on a projected future condition at the park that focuses on interpretation of the two Battles of Manassas as distinct military events. The visitor center at Henry Hill would orient visitors to the park as a whole while focusing on the First Battle of Manassas, while a separate visitor contact station would focus on the events of the Second Battle of Manassas. The experience at each battlefield would be unique, with stand-alone visitor areas and auto tour routes. A Manassas National Battlefield Park Bypass would permit removal of heavy commuter traffic and commercial truck traffic from the park on the portions of US 29 and VA Route 234 that run through the park. The Route 29 bridge over Bull Run would be removed, and through traffic would be further limited by the addition of controlled access facilities at the park's three remaining entry points. Alternative C, the "defining moments" alternative, would focus on the "watershed" events of the battles, encouraging visitors towards one major visitor center supported by multiple interpretive sites. The existing visitor center at Henry Hill, where a portion of the first battle took place, would be removed and a new visitor center would be constructed near Stone Bridge. The approved plan would direct park management for the next 10 to 15 years. Alternative B implementation costs are estimated at $19 to $42 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, visitors cold experience a thorough understanding of the battles by exploring the many historic sites associated with each event throughout the park. Rehabilitation of historic view sheds, particularly with respect to vegetation, would improve interpretive efforts. In general, visitors would experience a battlefield landscape resembling its wartime appearance. Key interpretive views would be preserved and recreated to help visitors understand the unfolding of the battles. Wartime historic structures would be retained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of vegetative communities, including removal of forested habitat, would impact natural plant communities and the association ecological values. Increased visitation would increase the risk of inadvertent and intention damage to cultural resources within the park. Air quality outside the park would suffer from the addition of traffic removed from the park via the bypass. 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), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 83-338, and Public Law 96-442. JF - EPA number: 050543, 228 pages, December 22, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Demography KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Manassas National Battlefield Park KW - Virginia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 83-338, Compliance KW - Public Law 96-442, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382673?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANASSAS+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+PARK%2C+FAIRFAX+AND+PRINCE+WILLIAMS+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=MANASSAS+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+PARK%2C+FAIRFAX+AND+PRINCE+WILLIAMS+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANASSAS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK, FAIRFAX AND PRINCE WILLIAMS COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - MANASSAS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK, FAIRFAX AND PRINCE WILLIAMS COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36382595; 060108D-050543_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan for the Manassas National Battlefield Park in Fairfax and Prince Williams counties, Virginia is proposed. The park, which encompasses 5,71 acres 25 miles west of Washington, D.C., preserves the scene of two major Civil War battles, in 1861 and 1862. The 1861 battle was the first major land battle of the war, while the 1862 battle brought the Confederacy to the height of its power and opened the way for the first Confederate campaign in the North. Heavy commuter and truck traffic on Portions of US 29 and VA Route 234 detract from visitor enjoyment, safety, and interpretive activities. Current vegetation patterns are reminiscent of wartime patterns, but are often different from exact wartime conditions that influenced the strategies and tactics of the two battles. Key issues identified during scoping include the quality and level of interpretation deviated to each of the two battles, traffic levels on US 29 and VA Route 234, the preservation and rehabilitation of wartime and other historic structures and sites, recreational uses of the park, future operational requirements, and the relationship between current vegetation patterns and the park's overall interpretive goals. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would be based on a projected future condition at the park that focuses on interpretation of the two Battles of Manassas as distinct military events. The visitor center at Henry Hill would orient visitors to the park as a whole while focusing on the First Battle of Manassas, while a separate visitor contact station would focus on the events of the Second Battle of Manassas. The experience at each battlefield would be unique, with stand-alone visitor areas and auto tour routes. A Manassas National Battlefield Park Bypass would permit removal of heavy commuter traffic and commercial truck traffic from the park on the portions of US 29 and VA Route 234 that run through the park. The Route 29 bridge over Bull Run would be removed, and through traffic would be further limited by the addition of controlled access facilities at the park's three remaining entry points. Alternative C, the "defining moments" alternative, would focus on the "watershed" events of the battles, encouraging visitors towards one major visitor center supported by multiple interpretive sites. The existing visitor center at Henry Hill, where a portion of the first battle took place, would be removed and a new visitor center would be constructed near Stone Bridge. The approved plan would direct park management for the next 10 to 15 years. Alternative B implementation costs are estimated at $19 to $42 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, visitors cold experience a thorough understanding of the battles by exploring the many historic sites associated with each event throughout the park. Rehabilitation of historic view sheds, particularly with respect to vegetation, would improve interpretive efforts. In general, visitors would experience a battlefield landscape resembling its wartime appearance. Key interpretive views would be preserved and recreated to help visitors understand the unfolding of the battles. Wartime historic structures would be retained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of vegetative communities, including removal of forested habitat, would impact natural plant communities and the association ecological values. Increased visitation would increase the risk of inadvertent and intention damage to cultural resources within the park. Air quality outside the park would suffer from the addition of traffic removed from the park via the bypass. 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), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 83-338, and Public Law 96-442. JF - EPA number: 050543, 228 pages, December 22, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Demography KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Manassas National Battlefield Park KW - Virginia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 83-338, Compliance KW - Public Law 96-442, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382595?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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, National Park Service; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANASSAS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK, FAIRFAX AND PRINCE WILLIAMS COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - MANASSAS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK, FAIRFAX AND PRINCE WILLIAMS COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36373699; 060108D-050543_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan for the Manassas National Battlefield Park in Fairfax and Prince Williams counties, Virginia is proposed. The park, which encompasses 5,71 acres 25 miles west of Washington, D.C., preserves the scene of two major Civil War battles, in 1861 and 1862. The 1861 battle was the first major land battle of the war, while the 1862 battle brought the Confederacy to the height of its power and opened the way for the first Confederate campaign in the North. Heavy commuter and truck traffic on Portions of US 29 and VA Route 234 detract from visitor enjoyment, safety, and interpretive activities. Current vegetation patterns are reminiscent of wartime patterns, but are often different from exact wartime conditions that influenced the strategies and tactics of the two battles. Key issues identified during scoping include the quality and level of interpretation deviated to each of the two battles, traffic levels on US 29 and VA Route 234, the preservation and rehabilitation of wartime and other historic structures and sites, recreational uses of the park, future operational requirements, and the relationship between current vegetation patterns and the park's overall interpretive goals. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would be based on a projected future condition at the park that focuses on interpretation of the two Battles of Manassas as distinct military events. The visitor center at Henry Hill would orient visitors to the park as a whole while focusing on the First Battle of Manassas, while a separate visitor contact station would focus on the events of the Second Battle of Manassas. The experience at each battlefield would be unique, with stand-alone visitor areas and auto tour routes. A Manassas National Battlefield Park Bypass would permit removal of heavy commuter traffic and commercial truck traffic from the park on the portions of US 29 and VA Route 234 that run through the park. The Route 29 bridge over Bull Run would be removed, and through traffic would be further limited by the addition of controlled access facilities at the park's three remaining entry points. Alternative C, the "defining moments" alternative, would focus on the "watershed" events of the battles, encouraging visitors towards one major visitor center supported by multiple interpretive sites. The existing visitor center at Henry Hill, where a portion of the first battle took place, would be removed and a new visitor center would be constructed near Stone Bridge. The approved plan would direct park management for the next 10 to 15 years. Alternative B implementation costs are estimated at $19 to $42 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, visitors cold experience a thorough understanding of the battles by exploring the many historic sites associated with each event throughout the park. Rehabilitation of historic view sheds, particularly with respect to vegetation, would improve interpretive efforts. In general, visitors would experience a battlefield landscape resembling its wartime appearance. Key interpretive views would be preserved and recreated to help visitors understand the unfolding of the battles. Wartime historic structures would be retained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of vegetative communities, including removal of forested habitat, would impact natural plant communities and the association ecological values. Increased visitation would increase the risk of inadvertent and intention damage to cultural resources within the park. Air quality outside the park would suffer from the addition of traffic removed from the park via the bypass. 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), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 83-338, and Public Law 96-442. JF - EPA number: 050543, 228 pages, December 22, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Demography KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Manassas National Battlefield Park KW - Virginia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 83-338, Compliance KW - Public Law 96-442, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373699?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANASSAS+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+PARK%2C+FAIRFAX+AND+PRINCE+WILLIAMS+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=MANASSAS+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+PARK%2C+FAIRFAX+AND+PRINCE+WILLIAMS+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANASSAS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK, FAIRFAX AND PRINCE WILLIAMS COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 16344643; 11858 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan for the Manassas National Battlefield Park in Fairfax and Prince Williams counties, Virginia is proposed. The park, which encompasses 5,71 acres 25 miles west of Washington, D.C., preserves the scene of two major Civil War battles, in 1861 and 1862. The 1861 battle was the first major land battle of the war, while the 1862 battle brought the Confederacy to the height of its power and opened the way for the first Confederate campaign in the North. Heavy commuter and truck traffic on Portions of US 29 and VA Route 234 detract from visitor enjoyment, safety, and interpretive activities. Current vegetation patterns are reminiscent of wartime patterns, but are often different from exact wartime conditions that influenced the strategies and tactics of the two battles. Key issues identified during scoping include the quality and level of interpretation deviated to each of the two battles, traffic levels on US 29 and VA Route 234, the preservation and rehabilitation of wartime and other historic structures and sites, recreational uses of the park, future operational requirements, and the relationship between current vegetation patterns and the park's overall interpretive goals. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would be based on a projected future condition at the park that focuses on interpretation of the two Battles of Manassas as distinct military events. The visitor center at Henry Hill would orient visitors to the park as a whole while focusing on the First Battle of Manassas, while a separate visitor contact station would focus on the events of the Second Battle of Manassas. The experience at each battlefield would be unique, with stand-alone visitor areas and auto tour routes. A Manassas National Battlefield Park Bypass would permit removal of heavy commuter traffic and commercial truck traffic from the park on the portions of US 29 and VA Route 234 that run through the park. The Route 29 bridge over Bull Run would be removed, and through traffic would be further limited by the addition of controlled access facilities at the park's three remaining entry points. Alternative C, the "defining moments" alternative, would focus on the "watershed" events of the battles, encouraging visitors towards one major visitor center supported by multiple interpretive sites. The existing visitor center at Henry Hill, where a portion of the first battle took place, would be removed and a new visitor center would be constructed near Stone Bridge. The approved plan would direct park management for the next 10 to 15 years. Alternative B implementation costs are estimated at $19 to $42 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, visitors cold experience a thorough understanding of the battles by exploring the many historic sites associated with each event throughout the park. Rehabilitation of historic view sheds, particularly with respect to vegetation, would improve interpretive efforts. In general, visitors would experience a battlefield landscape resembling its wartime appearance. Key interpretive views would be preserved and recreated to help visitors understand the unfolding of the battles. Wartime historic structures would be retained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of vegetative communities, including removal of forested habitat, would impact natural plant communities and the association ecological values. Increased visitation would increase the risk of inadvertent and intention damage to cultural resources within the park. Air quality outside the park would suffer from the addition of traffic removed from the park via the bypass. 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), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Public Law 83-338, and Public Law 96-442. JF - EPA number: 050543, 228 pages, December 22, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Demography KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Manassas National Battlefield Park KW - Virginia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 83-338, Compliance KW - Public Law 96-442, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16344643?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANASSAS+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+PARK%2C+FAIRFAX+AND+PRINCE+WILLIAMS+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=MANASSAS+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+PARK%2C+FAIRFAX+AND+PRINCE+WILLIAMS+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AGUA FRIA NATIONAL MONUMENT AND BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PHOENIX, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - AGUA FRIA NATIONAL MONUMENT AND BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PHOENIX, ARIZONA. AN - 36389277; 11864-050549_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Th 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, which 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 1), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this draft. 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.). JF - EPA number: 050549, Volume 1--454 pages, Volume 2--380 pages, Map Supplement, CD-ROM, December 20, 2005 PY - 2005 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 - 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 - 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/36389277?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AGUA+FRIA+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PHOENIX%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=AGUA+FRIA+NATIONAL+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AGUA FRIA NATIONAL MONUMENT AND BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PHOENIX, ARIZONA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - AGUA FRIA NATIONAL MONUMENT AND BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PHOENIX, ARIZONA. AN - 36389024; 11864-050549_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Th 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, which 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 1), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this draft. 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.). JF - EPA number: 050549, Volume 1--454 pages, Volume 2--380 pages, Map Supplement, CD-ROM, December 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 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 - 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 - 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/36389024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AGUA+FRIA+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PHOENIX%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=AGUA+FRIA+NATIONAL+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AGUA FRIA NATIONAL MONUMENT AND BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PHOENIX, ARIZONA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - AGUA FRIA NATIONAL MONUMENT AND BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PHOENIX, ARIZONA. AN - 36379784; 11864-050549_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Th 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, which 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 1), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this draft. 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.). JF - EPA number: 050549, Volume 1--454 pages, Volume 2--380 pages, Map Supplement, CD-ROM, December 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 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 - 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 - 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/36379784?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AGUA+FRIA+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PHOENIX%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=AGUA+FRIA+NATIONAL+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AGUA FRIA NATIONAL MONUMENT AND BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PHOENIX, ARIZONA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - AGUA FRIA NATIONAL MONUMENT AND BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PHOENIX, ARIZONA. AN - 36379746; 11864-050549_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Th 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, which 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 1), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this draft. 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.). JF - EPA number: 050549, Volume 1--454 pages, Volume 2--380 pages, Map Supplement, CD-ROM, December 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 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 - 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 - 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/36379746?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-20&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, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AGUA FRIA NATIONAL MONUMENT AND BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PHOENIX, ARIZONA. AN - 16347565; 11864 AB - PURPOSE: Th 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, which 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 1), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this draft. 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.). JF - EPA number: 050549, Volume 1--454 pages, Volume 2--380 pages, Map Supplement, CD-ROM, December 20, 2005 PY - 2005 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 - 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 - 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/16347565?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AGUA+FRIA+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PHOENIX%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=AGUA+FRIA+NATIONAL+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORDOVA OIL SPILL RESPONSE FACILITY, SHEPARD POINT, ALASKA. AN - 16343873; 11850 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an oil spill response facility at Shepard Point near Cordova, Alaska are proposed. Cordova lies 150 air miles southeast of Anchorage and 52 air miles southeast of Valdez in Orca Inlet at the southeastern end of Prince William Sound. The proposed facility would consist of a dedicated deepwater port, additional staging and storage acres, and an access road to the Cordova road system. The facility would allow all-tide transfer of out-of-region supplies, such as booms, skimmers, sorbents, anchors, tools, and personal protective equipment from the all-weather airport at Cordova to a wider variety of response vessels than can currently use the Cordova port. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would provide for two design variants. Alternative 4A, the preferred dock variant, would provide a new facility with a fill dock at Shepard Point. The new fill dock would have a 600-foot-long face and a water depth of 30 feet below mean lower low water (MLLW). The dock and a new staging area at Shepard Point would require approximately 110,00 cubic yards (cy) snf 2.1 acres of tideland fill, and a total fill volume of 130,000 cy. The cost of construction of the fill dock and staging area is estimated at $9.6 million. Alternative B would provide for a pile-supported dock, rather than a fill dock. The new pile-supported dock would extend 350 feet by 60 feet and would be constructed using steel piles to support a concrete desk. The new dock would have a water depth of 40 feet below MLLW. The new pile-supported dock and staging area would require no tideland fill and would have a total fill volume of only 17,000 cy. The cost of Alternative 4B implementation is estimated at $12.9 million. Option 4B is preferred. 7[POS]The presence of the oil spill response facility at Cordova would enhance the regional spill response capability presently serving Prince William Sound by providing all-tide access and efficient flow of pre-positioned and out-of-region equipment, supplies, and personnel to vessels responding to oil spills in the Sound and in the northern Gulf of Alaska. Lying at the population center of the Sound, the facility would secure and protect residents and ecological values throughout the region. existing an foreseeable future spill response. The spill facility would include a staging area adjacent to the dock capable of supporting the necessary cleanup equipment and materials. Oil spill response activities would not longer conflict with commercial fishing interests. Cargo vessels with deeper drafts than can be handled via the current capacity of the existing facilities can handle would be accommodated. Subsistence economies would be benefited due to reduction of oil spill damage in the sound. Construction activities would employ 38 workers at an total wage of $1.2 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some subsistence-related habitat would be lost to facilities development. The facilities, particularly access roads, would be located in an area affected by avalanches and landslides. The proposed facilities would mar visual aesthetics in the Cordova area. Benthic, wetland, and terrestrial habitat as well as essential habitat for eelgrass would be displaced by the dock and the associated basin. JF - EPA number: 050535, Executive Summary-34 pages, Draft EIS--421 pages and maps, December 16, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Marine Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Oil Spills KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Gulf of Alaska KW - Prince William Sound UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16343873?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORDOVA+OIL+SPILL+RESPONSE+FACILITY%2C+SHEPARD+POINT%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=CORDOVA+OIL+SPILL+RESPONSE+FACILITY%2C+SHEPARD+POINT%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Juneau, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36382940; 060099F-050525_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36382940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%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, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36382865; 060099F-050525_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36382865?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%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, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36381846; 060099F-050525_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 10 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36381846?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%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, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36381617; 060099F-050525_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 17 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36381617?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%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, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36381550; 060099F-050525_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36381550?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%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, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36381430; 060099F-050525_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 21 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36381430?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%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, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36381355; 060099F-050525_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 20 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36381355?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%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, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36381267; 060099F-050525_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 13 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36381267?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%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, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36380880; 060099F-050525_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36380880?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%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, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGMENT PLAN, SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - FIRE MANAGMENT PLAN, SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36380484; 11841-050526_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area (SMMNRA) of California is proposed. The SMMNRA is unusual within the National Parks System because the recreational area is located adjacent to one of the world's largest urban areas and is comprised of a mosaic of federal, state, and private lands. Wild land fire is a natural process in the southern California Mediterranean ecosystem, with fire tolerant or fire dependent adaptations characteristics of many species in the ecosystem. Fire history has shaped the plant communities of the area and is a major factor affecting their diversity, productivity, and distribution. Aggressive fire suppression during the 20th century successfully excluded fire from certain forest landscapes, allowing the buildup of forest litter and excessive vegetation and creating conditions for intense large-scale wildfires. During the same period, the area has experienced a dramatic increase in the human population living in wild land areas that are prone to wildfires. Consequently, the number of people and structures at risk from wildfire has dramatically increased as have the associated costs of fighting fires. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The environmentally preferred alternative (Alternative 2), which has been selected for implementation, would emphasize flexibility, utilizing all available fire management strategies identified to be appropriate for use in the Santa Monica Mountains. Alternative 2 would provide for mechanical fuel reduction, ecological prescribed fire, and strategic fuels treatment. Strategic zones would be identified using up-to-date analysis of vegetation types, fuel characteristics, fire spread models, and potential hazards to life property, and natural and cultural resources. Mechanical fuel reduction would be concentrated in the wild land-urban interface to protect homes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred management plan would provide for firefighter and public safety, reduce fire hazards in the SMMNRA with the most effective fire management strategies consistent with federal laws and policies, protect the park's ecological and cultural resources, identify resource conditions and hazards affecting private property within and around the park boundary that require specific fire management actions, and provide a decision framework for fire and resource managers to evaluate fire management proposals that provide protection for social values from wildfires or proposals that provide enhancement of resource values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Prescribed burning would result in destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, exposure of bare soils to erosion, and degradation of air quality, but these impacts would be temporary. Mechanical removal of fuels would also destroy vegetation and denude soils temporarily. All intrusive management activities would degrade recreational enjoyment of the area until the affected tracts regenerated. 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 05-0034D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050526, 391 pages and maps, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - National Parks KW - California KW - Santa Monica Mountains 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/36380484?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+MONICA+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+MONICA+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36380418; 060099F-050525_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 15 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36380418?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%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, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36375026; 060099F-050525_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36375026?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%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, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36373643; 060099F-050525_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36373643?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%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, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36373032; 060099F-050525_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 18 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36373032?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%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, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36372951; 060099F-050525_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 11 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36372951?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGMENT PLAN, SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - FIRE MANAGMENT PLAN, SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36371719; 11841-050526_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area (SMMNRA) of California is proposed. The SMMNRA is unusual within the National Parks System because the recreational area is located adjacent to one of the world's largest urban areas and is comprised of a mosaic of federal, state, and private lands. Wild land fire is a natural process in the southern California Mediterranean ecosystem, with fire tolerant or fire dependent adaptations characteristics of many species in the ecosystem. Fire history has shaped the plant communities of the area and is a major factor affecting their diversity, productivity, and distribution. Aggressive fire suppression during the 20th century successfully excluded fire from certain forest landscapes, allowing the buildup of forest litter and excessive vegetation and creating conditions for intense large-scale wildfires. During the same period, the area has experienced a dramatic increase in the human population living in wild land areas that are prone to wildfires. Consequently, the number of people and structures at risk from wildfire has dramatically increased as have the associated costs of fighting fires. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The environmentally preferred alternative (Alternative 2), which has been selected for implementation, would emphasize flexibility, utilizing all available fire management strategies identified to be appropriate for use in the Santa Monica Mountains. Alternative 2 would provide for mechanical fuel reduction, ecological prescribed fire, and strategic fuels treatment. Strategic zones would be identified using up-to-date analysis of vegetation types, fuel characteristics, fire spread models, and potential hazards to life property, and natural and cultural resources. Mechanical fuel reduction would be concentrated in the wild land-urban interface to protect homes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred management plan would provide for firefighter and public safety, reduce fire hazards in the SMMNRA with the most effective fire management strategies consistent with federal laws and policies, protect the park's ecological and cultural resources, identify resource conditions and hazards affecting private property within and around the park boundary that require specific fire management actions, and provide a decision framework for fire and resource managers to evaluate fire management proposals that provide protection for social values from wildfires or proposals that provide enhancement of resource values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Prescribed burning would result in destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, exposure of bare soils to erosion, and degradation of air quality, but these impacts would be temporary. Mechanical removal of fuels would also destroy vegetation and denude soils temporarily. All intrusive management activities would degrade recreational enjoyment of the area until the affected tracts regenerated. 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 05-0034D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050526, 391 pages and maps, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - National Parks KW - California KW - Santa Monica Mountains 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/36371719?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+MONICA+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+MONICA+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36369633; 060099F-050525_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 9 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36369633?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36369426; 060099F-050525_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36369426?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%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, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36369009; 060099F-050525_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 14 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36369009?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36368473; 060099F-050525_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36368473?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%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, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36368353; 060099F-050525_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 16 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36368353?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36368299; 060099F-050525_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 12 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36368299?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%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, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 21] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36368226; 060099F-050525_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wild land fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for short periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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 05-0505D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050525, 658 pages, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 19 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36368226?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%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, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGMENT PLAN, SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16340845; 11841 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area (SMMNRA) of California is proposed. The SMMNRA is unusual within the National Parks System because the recreational area is located adjacent to one of the world's largest urban areas and is comprised of a mosaic of federal, state, and private lands. Wild land fire is a natural process in the southern California Mediterranean ecosystem, with fire tolerant or fire dependent adaptations characteristics of many species in the ecosystem. Fire history has shaped the plant communities of the area and is a major factor affecting their diversity, productivity, and distribution. Aggressive fire suppression during the 20th century successfully excluded fire from certain forest landscapes, allowing the buildup of forest litter and excessive vegetation and creating conditions for intense large-scale wildfires. During the same period, the area has experienced a dramatic increase in the human population living in wild land areas that are prone to wildfires. Consequently, the number of people and structures at risk from wildfire has dramatically increased as have the associated costs of fighting fires. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The environmentally preferred alternative (Alternative 2), which has been selected for implementation, would emphasize flexibility, utilizing all available fire management strategies identified to be appropriate for use in the Santa Monica Mountains. Alternative 2 would provide for mechanical fuel reduction, ecological prescribed fire, and strategic fuels treatment. Strategic zones would be identified using up-to-date analysis of vegetation types, fuel characteristics, fire spread models, and potential hazards to life property, and natural and cultural resources. Mechanical fuel reduction would be concentrated in the wild land-urban interface to protect homes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred management plan would provide for firefighter and public safety, reduce fire hazards in the SMMNRA with the most effective fire management strategies consistent with federal laws and policies, protect the park's ecological and cultural resources, identify resource conditions and hazards affecting private property within and around the park boundary that require specific fire management actions, and provide a decision framework for fire and resource managers to evaluate fire management proposals that provide protection for social values from wildfires or proposals that provide enhancement of resource values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Prescribed burning would result in destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, exposure of bare soils to erosion, and degradation of air quality, but these impacts would be temporary. Mechanical removal of fuels would also destroy vegetation and denude soils temporarily. All intrusive management activities would degrade recreational enjoyment of the area until the affected tracts regenerated. 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 05-0034D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050526, 391 pages and maps, December 14, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - National Parks KW - California KW - Santa Monica Mountains 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/16340845?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+MONICA+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+MONICA+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERT SOUTHWEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16344561; 11839 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 118 miles of 500-kilovolt transmission line from a new substation/switching station just south of the Blythe Energy Project power plant to Southern California Edison's Devers Substation, located 10 miles north of Palm Springs, California are proposed. Recent long-term demand estimates have indicated that demand for electric power in the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), the applicant, will increase at a rate of 20 to 30 megawatts annually. The estimates also indicate that California's peak electricity demand will increase at approximately two percent per year. New generation facilities have been completed in the region to the north and east of IID's service area that may provide a portion of IID's current and future demand requirements. Transmission access constitutes the main constraint to utilizing these new generation sources to meet the increased demand for electric power in IID's service area. The 500-kV line would use single-circuit technology supported by steel lattice structures. The transmission line alignment would follow a generally east-west route from the new substation/switching station to the Devers Substation. The new substation/switching station would be located 4.5 miles west of town of Blythe. The project would also include modifications at the existing Devers Substation. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and four route alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. A preferred route alternative has been selected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transmission line and new substation/switching station would provide increased transmission capacity to meet regional transmission requirements. Continued agricultural and industrial development in the IID service area would be supported and encouraged, enhance local and regional economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Substation/switching station construction and development of the transmission line would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including desert tortoise habitat, and disturb soils, resulting in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. The proposed action would result in the temporary disturbance of 428 acres and the permanent displacement of 21 acres. The existence of the lines would present a collision hazard to raptors, including the federally protected bald eagle, and other bird species. Construction activities could result in the incidental take of federally protected species, including Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizards, flat-tailed horned lizards, Colorado fringe-toed lizards, desert rosy boa, Couch's spadefoots, borrowing owls, loggerhead shrikes, LeConte's thrashers, black-tailed gnat-catchers, prairie falcons, chuckwallas, and Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrels. Cultural and paleontological resource sites could be disturbed. The transmission lines would result in degradation of wilderness values and other recreational values and would generally mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. 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 04-0122D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050524, 742 pages and maps, December 13, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 03-15 KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wilderness 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/16344561?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERT+SOUTHWEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DESERT+SOUTHWEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 13, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 12 of 12] T2 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36382768; 050163D-050520_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a light industrial and commercial business park on a 520-acre site south of Interstate 84 (I-84) at Exit 216 and west of South Market Road seven miles east of Pendleton, Umatilla County, Oregon are proposed by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The site, to be known as the Coyote Business Park, would be developed in phases. The first phase would consist of construction of infrastructure for the park, including extension of domestic water supply, drain fields or sanitary sewers, storm water drainage facilities, roads, and utilities to the proposed commercial lots. In the first phase, the proponent would also proposed replacement power support structures within the high-voltage Bonneville Power Administration line that crosses the site. Water would be provided either from a new onsite well or from the Mission Water System. Wastewater would be handled by either onsite septic and drain field systems or by connection to the Mission Wastewater Collection System, which treats water through a cooperative agreement with the city of Pendleton. Storm water would get retained onsite. Access would be provided off of south Market Road, a county facility, which would be improved to an industrial standard and provided with a dedicated right-hand turn lane into the site. Commercial utilities would be provided through extensions of existing services. During the second phase, the project would involve construction and operation of business facilities on the commercial lots. The second phase would be constructed and financed by individual business owners. Anticipated light industrial operations would include warehousing, distribution, and assembly services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would result in a 142-acre development, with 13 lots, ranging in size from six to 13 acres, made available for development and leasing. Building sizes would range from 15,000 square feet to 400,000 square feet. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $4.44 million; this sum would be financed by lease revenues and by available tribal, state, and federal investment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to boosting the tribal economy, enabling tribal authorities to better govern their resources, the park would provide siting for development of needed service industries in the region. Approximately 546 jobs would be created due to the park development and operation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The gravel road providing access to the Oregon Department of Transportation's gravel shed south of I-84 would be removed, through alternative access would be constructed. Patawa Creek would be affected by site development, though these impacts would be mitigated by the development of a stormwater drainage system that would isolate storm water runoff from the creek. creation of a riparian management zone along the creek, incorporation of best management practices to reduce groundwater impacts, incorporation of landscaping and night lighting design to reduce visual impacts, avoidance of cultural resource sites within the creek corridor, and designing a bridge across the creek to minimize creek impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050520, 241 pages, December 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 12 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Industrial Parks KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Water Supply KW - Oregon KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382768?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+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, Pendleton, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 11 of 12] T2 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36382069; 050163D-050520_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a light industrial and commercial business park on a 520-acre site south of Interstate 84 (I-84) at Exit 216 and west of South Market Road seven miles east of Pendleton, Umatilla County, Oregon are proposed by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The site, to be known as the Coyote Business Park, would be developed in phases. The first phase would consist of construction of infrastructure for the park, including extension of domestic water supply, drain fields or sanitary sewers, storm water drainage facilities, roads, and utilities to the proposed commercial lots. In the first phase, the proponent would also proposed replacement power support structures within the high-voltage Bonneville Power Administration line that crosses the site. Water would be provided either from a new onsite well or from the Mission Water System. Wastewater would be handled by either onsite septic and drain field systems or by connection to the Mission Wastewater Collection System, which treats water through a cooperative agreement with the city of Pendleton. Storm water would get retained onsite. Access would be provided off of south Market Road, a county facility, which would be improved to an industrial standard and provided with a dedicated right-hand turn lane into the site. Commercial utilities would be provided through extensions of existing services. During the second phase, the project would involve construction and operation of business facilities on the commercial lots. The second phase would be constructed and financed by individual business owners. Anticipated light industrial operations would include warehousing, distribution, and assembly services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would result in a 142-acre development, with 13 lots, ranging in size from six to 13 acres, made available for development and leasing. Building sizes would range from 15,000 square feet to 400,000 square feet. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $4.44 million; this sum would be financed by lease revenues and by available tribal, state, and federal investment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to boosting the tribal economy, enabling tribal authorities to better govern their resources, the park would provide siting for development of needed service industries in the region. Approximately 546 jobs would be created due to the park development and operation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The gravel road providing access to the Oregon Department of Transportation's gravel shed south of I-84 would be removed, through alternative access would be constructed. Patawa Creek would be affected by site development, though these impacts would be mitigated by the development of a stormwater drainage system that would isolate storm water runoff from the creek. creation of a riparian management zone along the creek, incorporation of best management practices to reduce groundwater impacts, incorporation of landscaping and night lighting design to reduce visual impacts, avoidance of cultural resource sites within the creek corridor, and designing a bridge across the creek to minimize creek impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050520, 241 pages, December 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 11 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Industrial Parks KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Water Supply KW - Oregon KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+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, Pendleton, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 5 of 12] T2 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36381793; 050163D-050520_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a light industrial and commercial business park on a 520-acre site south of Interstate 84 (I-84) at Exit 216 and west of South Market Road seven miles east of Pendleton, Umatilla County, Oregon are proposed by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The site, to be known as the Coyote Business Park, would be developed in phases. The first phase would consist of construction of infrastructure for the park, including extension of domestic water supply, drain fields or sanitary sewers, storm water drainage facilities, roads, and utilities to the proposed commercial lots. In the first phase, the proponent would also proposed replacement power support structures within the high-voltage Bonneville Power Administration line that crosses the site. Water would be provided either from a new onsite well or from the Mission Water System. Wastewater would be handled by either onsite septic and drain field systems or by connection to the Mission Wastewater Collection System, which treats water through a cooperative agreement with the city of Pendleton. Storm water would get retained onsite. Access would be provided off of south Market Road, a county facility, which would be improved to an industrial standard and provided with a dedicated right-hand turn lane into the site. Commercial utilities would be provided through extensions of existing services. During the second phase, the project would involve construction and operation of business facilities on the commercial lots. The second phase would be constructed and financed by individual business owners. Anticipated light industrial operations would include warehousing, distribution, and assembly services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would result in a 142-acre development, with 13 lots, ranging in size from six to 13 acres, made available for development and leasing. Building sizes would range from 15,000 square feet to 400,000 square feet. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $4.44 million; this sum would be financed by lease revenues and by available tribal, state, and federal investment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to boosting the tribal economy, enabling tribal authorities to better govern their resources, the park would provide siting for development of needed service industries in the region. Approximately 546 jobs would be created due to the park development and operation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The gravel road providing access to the Oregon Department of Transportation's gravel shed south of I-84 would be removed, through alternative access would be constructed. Patawa Creek would be affected by site development, though these impacts would be mitigated by the development of a stormwater drainage system that would isolate storm water runoff from the creek. creation of a riparian management zone along the creek, incorporation of best management practices to reduce groundwater impacts, incorporation of landscaping and night lighting design to reduce visual impacts, avoidance of cultural resource sites within the creek corridor, and designing a bridge across the creek to minimize creek impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050520, 241 pages, December 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Industrial Parks KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Water Supply KW - Oregon KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381793?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+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, Pendleton, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 1 of 12] T2 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36381737; 050163D-050520_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a light industrial and commercial business park on a 520-acre site south of Interstate 84 (I-84) at Exit 216 and west of South Market Road seven miles east of Pendleton, Umatilla County, Oregon are proposed by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The site, to be known as the Coyote Business Park, would be developed in phases. The first phase would consist of construction of infrastructure for the park, including extension of domestic water supply, drain fields or sanitary sewers, storm water drainage facilities, roads, and utilities to the proposed commercial lots. In the first phase, the proponent would also proposed replacement power support structures within the high-voltage Bonneville Power Administration line that crosses the site. Water would be provided either from a new onsite well or from the Mission Water System. Wastewater would be handled by either onsite septic and drain field systems or by connection to the Mission Wastewater Collection System, which treats water through a cooperative agreement with the city of Pendleton. Storm water would get retained onsite. Access would be provided off of south Market Road, a county facility, which would be improved to an industrial standard and provided with a dedicated right-hand turn lane into the site. Commercial utilities would be provided through extensions of existing services. During the second phase, the project would involve construction and operation of business facilities on the commercial lots. The second phase would be constructed and financed by individual business owners. Anticipated light industrial operations would include warehousing, distribution, and assembly services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would result in a 142-acre development, with 13 lots, ranging in size from six to 13 acres, made available for development and leasing. Building sizes would range from 15,000 square feet to 400,000 square feet. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $4.44 million; this sum would be financed by lease revenues and by available tribal, state, and federal investment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to boosting the tribal economy, enabling tribal authorities to better govern their resources, the park would provide siting for development of needed service industries in the region. Approximately 546 jobs would be created due to the park development and operation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The gravel road providing access to the Oregon Department of Transportation's gravel shed south of I-84 would be removed, through alternative access would be constructed. Patawa Creek would be affected by site development, though these impacts would be mitigated by the development of a stormwater drainage system that would isolate storm water runoff from the creek. creation of a riparian management zone along the creek, incorporation of best management practices to reduce groundwater impacts, incorporation of landscaping and night lighting design to reduce visual impacts, avoidance of cultural resource sites within the creek corridor, and designing a bridge across the creek to minimize creek impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050520, 241 pages, December 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Industrial Parks KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Water Supply KW - Oregon KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381737?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+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, Pendleton, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 10 of 12] T2 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36380873; 050163D-050520_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a light industrial and commercial business park on a 520-acre site south of Interstate 84 (I-84) at Exit 216 and west of South Market Road seven miles east of Pendleton, Umatilla County, Oregon are proposed by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The site, to be known as the Coyote Business Park, would be developed in phases. The first phase would consist of construction of infrastructure for the park, including extension of domestic water supply, drain fields or sanitary sewers, storm water drainage facilities, roads, and utilities to the proposed commercial lots. In the first phase, the proponent would also proposed replacement power support structures within the high-voltage Bonneville Power Administration line that crosses the site. Water would be provided either from a new onsite well or from the Mission Water System. Wastewater would be handled by either onsite septic and drain field systems or by connection to the Mission Wastewater Collection System, which treats water through a cooperative agreement with the city of Pendleton. Storm water would get retained onsite. Access would be provided off of south Market Road, a county facility, which would be improved to an industrial standard and provided with a dedicated right-hand turn lane into the site. Commercial utilities would be provided through extensions of existing services. During the second phase, the project would involve construction and operation of business facilities on the commercial lots. The second phase would be constructed and financed by individual business owners. Anticipated light industrial operations would include warehousing, distribution, and assembly services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would result in a 142-acre development, with 13 lots, ranging in size from six to 13 acres, made available for development and leasing. Building sizes would range from 15,000 square feet to 400,000 square feet. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $4.44 million; this sum would be financed by lease revenues and by available tribal, state, and federal investment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to boosting the tribal economy, enabling tribal authorities to better govern their resources, the park would provide siting for development of needed service industries in the region. Approximately 546 jobs would be created due to the park development and operation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The gravel road providing access to the Oregon Department of Transportation's gravel shed south of I-84 would be removed, through alternative access would be constructed. Patawa Creek would be affected by site development, though these impacts would be mitigated by the development of a stormwater drainage system that would isolate storm water runoff from the creek. creation of a riparian management zone along the creek, incorporation of best management practices to reduce groundwater impacts, incorporation of landscaping and night lighting design to reduce visual impacts, avoidance of cultural resource sites within the creek corridor, and designing a bridge across the creek to minimize creek impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050520, 241 pages, December 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 10 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Industrial Parks KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Water Supply KW - Oregon KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380873?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+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, Pendleton, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 4 of 12] T2 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36380790; 050163D-050520_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a light industrial and commercial business park on a 520-acre site south of Interstate 84 (I-84) at Exit 216 and west of South Market Road seven miles east of Pendleton, Umatilla County, Oregon are proposed by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The site, to be known as the Coyote Business Park, would be developed in phases. The first phase would consist of construction of infrastructure for the park, including extension of domestic water supply, drain fields or sanitary sewers, storm water drainage facilities, roads, and utilities to the proposed commercial lots. In the first phase, the proponent would also proposed replacement power support structures within the high-voltage Bonneville Power Administration line that crosses the site. Water would be provided either from a new onsite well or from the Mission Water System. Wastewater would be handled by either onsite septic and drain field systems or by connection to the Mission Wastewater Collection System, which treats water through a cooperative agreement with the city of Pendleton. Storm water would get retained onsite. Access would be provided off of south Market Road, a county facility, which would be improved to an industrial standard and provided with a dedicated right-hand turn lane into the site. Commercial utilities would be provided through extensions of existing services. During the second phase, the project would involve construction and operation of business facilities on the commercial lots. The second phase would be constructed and financed by individual business owners. Anticipated light industrial operations would include warehousing, distribution, and assembly services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would result in a 142-acre development, with 13 lots, ranging in size from six to 13 acres, made available for development and leasing. Building sizes would range from 15,000 square feet to 400,000 square feet. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $4.44 million; this sum would be financed by lease revenues and by available tribal, state, and federal investment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to boosting the tribal economy, enabling tribal authorities to better govern their resources, the park would provide siting for development of needed service industries in the region. Approximately 546 jobs would be created due to the park development and operation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The gravel road providing access to the Oregon Department of Transportation's gravel shed south of I-84 would be removed, through alternative access would be constructed. Patawa Creek would be affected by site development, though these impacts would be mitigated by the development of a stormwater drainage system that would isolate storm water runoff from the creek. creation of a riparian management zone along the creek, incorporation of best management practices to reduce groundwater impacts, incorporation of landscaping and night lighting design to reduce visual impacts, avoidance of cultural resource sites within the creek corridor, and designing a bridge across the creek to minimize creek impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050520, 241 pages, December 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Industrial Parks KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Water Supply KW - Oregon KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380790?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 Indian Affairs, Pendleton, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE ARIZONA STRIP FIELD OFFICE AND VERMILLION CLIFFS NATIONAL MONUMENT AND BLM PORTION OF GRAND CANYON-PARASHANT NATIONAL MONUMENT AND GEENRAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE NPS PORTION OF THE GRAND CANYON-PARASHANT NATIONAL MONUMENT, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE ARIZONA STRIP FIELD OFFICE AND VERMILLION CLIFFS NATIONAL MONUMENT AND BLM PORTION OF GRAND CANYON-PARASHANT NATIONAL MONUMENT AND GEENRAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE NPS PORTION OF THE GRAND CANYON-PARASHANT NATIONAL MONUMENT, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 36380370; 050097D-050521_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan for the Arizona Strip of Coconino and Mohave counties, Arizona 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 un-fragmented, 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 monument 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 draft 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 sue/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 remove 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, cayoneering,, 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 vehicle. 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. JF - EPA number: 050521, Volume 1--671 pages, Volume 1--642 pages, December 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 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/36380370?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-09&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+BLM+PORTION+OF+GRAND+CANYON-PARASHANT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+GEENRAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+NPS+PORTION+OF+THE+GRAND+CANYON-PARASHANT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+ARIZONA+STRIP+FIELD+OFFICE+AND+VERMILLION+CLIFFS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+BLM+PORTION+OF+GRAND+CANYON-PARASHANT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+GEENRAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+NPS+PORTION+OF+THE+GRAND+CANYON-PARASHANT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 6 of 12] T2 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36373658; 050163D-050520_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a light industrial and commercial business park on a 520-acre site south of Interstate 84 (I-84) at Exit 216 and west of South Market Road seven miles east of Pendleton, Umatilla County, Oregon are proposed by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The site, to be known as the Coyote Business Park, would be developed in phases. The first phase would consist of construction of infrastructure for the park, including extension of domestic water supply, drain fields or sanitary sewers, storm water drainage facilities, roads, and utilities to the proposed commercial lots. In the first phase, the proponent would also proposed replacement power support structures within the high-voltage Bonneville Power Administration line that crosses the site. Water would be provided either from a new onsite well or from the Mission Water System. Wastewater would be handled by either onsite septic and drain field systems or by connection to the Mission Wastewater Collection System, which treats water through a cooperative agreement with the city of Pendleton. Storm water would get retained onsite. Access would be provided off of south Market Road, a county facility, which would be improved to an industrial standard and provided with a dedicated right-hand turn lane into the site. Commercial utilities would be provided through extensions of existing services. During the second phase, the project would involve construction and operation of business facilities on the commercial lots. The second phase would be constructed and financed by individual business owners. Anticipated light industrial operations would include warehousing, distribution, and assembly services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would result in a 142-acre development, with 13 lots, ranging in size from six to 13 acres, made available for development and leasing. Building sizes would range from 15,000 square feet to 400,000 square feet. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $4.44 million; this sum would be financed by lease revenues and by available tribal, state, and federal investment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to boosting the tribal economy, enabling tribal authorities to better govern their resources, the park would provide siting for development of needed service industries in the region. Approximately 546 jobs would be created due to the park development and operation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The gravel road providing access to the Oregon Department of Transportation's gravel shed south of I-84 would be removed, through alternative access would be constructed. Patawa Creek would be affected by site development, though these impacts would be mitigated by the development of a stormwater drainage system that would isolate storm water runoff from the creek. creation of a riparian management zone along the creek, incorporation of best management practices to reduce groundwater impacts, incorporation of landscaping and night lighting design to reduce visual impacts, avoidance of cultural resource sites within the creek corridor, and designing a bridge across the creek to minimize creek impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050520, 241 pages, December 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Industrial Parks KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Water Supply KW - Oregon KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373658?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+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, Pendleton, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 3 of 12] T2 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36373601; 050163D-050520_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a light industrial and commercial business park on a 520-acre site south of Interstate 84 (I-84) at Exit 216 and west of South Market Road seven miles east of Pendleton, Umatilla County, Oregon are proposed by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The site, to be known as the Coyote Business Park, would be developed in phases. The first phase would consist of construction of infrastructure for the park, including extension of domestic water supply, drain fields or sanitary sewers, storm water drainage facilities, roads, and utilities to the proposed commercial lots. In the first phase, the proponent would also proposed replacement power support structures within the high-voltage Bonneville Power Administration line that crosses the site. Water would be provided either from a new onsite well or from the Mission Water System. Wastewater would be handled by either onsite septic and drain field systems or by connection to the Mission Wastewater Collection System, which treats water through a cooperative agreement with the city of Pendleton. Storm water would get retained onsite. Access would be provided off of south Market Road, a county facility, which would be improved to an industrial standard and provided with a dedicated right-hand turn lane into the site. Commercial utilities would be provided through extensions of existing services. During the second phase, the project would involve construction and operation of business facilities on the commercial lots. The second phase would be constructed and financed by individual business owners. Anticipated light industrial operations would include warehousing, distribution, and assembly services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would result in a 142-acre development, with 13 lots, ranging in size from six to 13 acres, made available for development and leasing. Building sizes would range from 15,000 square feet to 400,000 square feet. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $4.44 million; this sum would be financed by lease revenues and by available tribal, state, and federal investment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to boosting the tribal economy, enabling tribal authorities to better govern their resources, the park would provide siting for development of needed service industries in the region. Approximately 546 jobs would be created due to the park development and operation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The gravel road providing access to the Oregon Department of Transportation's gravel shed south of I-84 would be removed, through alternative access would be constructed. Patawa Creek would be affected by site development, though these impacts would be mitigated by the development of a stormwater drainage system that would isolate storm water runoff from the creek. creation of a riparian management zone along the creek, incorporation of best management practices to reduce groundwater impacts, incorporation of landscaping and night lighting design to reduce visual impacts, avoidance of cultural resource sites within the creek corridor, and designing a bridge across the creek to minimize creek impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050520, 241 pages, December 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Industrial Parks KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Water Supply KW - Oregon KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373601?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+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, Pendleton, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 9 of 12] T2 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36368868; 050163D-050520_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a light industrial and commercial business park on a 520-acre site south of Interstate 84 (I-84) at Exit 216 and west of South Market Road seven miles east of Pendleton, Umatilla County, Oregon are proposed by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The site, to be known as the Coyote Business Park, would be developed in phases. The first phase would consist of construction of infrastructure for the park, including extension of domestic water supply, drain fields or sanitary sewers, storm water drainage facilities, roads, and utilities to the proposed commercial lots. In the first phase, the proponent would also proposed replacement power support structures within the high-voltage Bonneville Power Administration line that crosses the site. Water would be provided either from a new onsite well or from the Mission Water System. Wastewater would be handled by either onsite septic and drain field systems or by connection to the Mission Wastewater Collection System, which treats water through a cooperative agreement with the city of Pendleton. Storm water would get retained onsite. Access would be provided off of south Market Road, a county facility, which would be improved to an industrial standard and provided with a dedicated right-hand turn lane into the site. Commercial utilities would be provided through extensions of existing services. During the second phase, the project would involve construction and operation of business facilities on the commercial lots. The second phase would be constructed and financed by individual business owners. Anticipated light industrial operations would include warehousing, distribution, and assembly services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would result in a 142-acre development, with 13 lots, ranging in size from six to 13 acres, made available for development and leasing. Building sizes would range from 15,000 square feet to 400,000 square feet. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $4.44 million; this sum would be financed by lease revenues and by available tribal, state, and federal investment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to boosting the tribal economy, enabling tribal authorities to better govern their resources, the park would provide siting for development of needed service industries in the region. Approximately 546 jobs would be created due to the park development and operation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The gravel road providing access to the Oregon Department of Transportation's gravel shed south of I-84 would be removed, through alternative access would be constructed. Patawa Creek would be affected by site development, though these impacts would be mitigated by the development of a stormwater drainage system that would isolate storm water runoff from the creek. creation of a riparian management zone along the creek, incorporation of best management practices to reduce groundwater impacts, incorporation of landscaping and night lighting design to reduce visual impacts, avoidance of cultural resource sites within the creek corridor, and designing a bridge across the creek to minimize creek impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050520, 241 pages, December 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 9 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Industrial Parks KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Water Supply KW - Oregon KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368868?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+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, Pendleton, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 7 of 12] T2 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36368132; 050163D-050520_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a light industrial and commercial business park on a 520-acre site south of Interstate 84 (I-84) at Exit 216 and west of South Market Road seven miles east of Pendleton, Umatilla County, Oregon are proposed by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The site, to be known as the Coyote Business Park, would be developed in phases. The first phase would consist of construction of infrastructure for the park, including extension of domestic water supply, drain fields or sanitary sewers, storm water drainage facilities, roads, and utilities to the proposed commercial lots. In the first phase, the proponent would also proposed replacement power support structures within the high-voltage Bonneville Power Administration line that crosses the site. Water would be provided either from a new onsite well or from the Mission Water System. Wastewater would be handled by either onsite septic and drain field systems or by connection to the Mission Wastewater Collection System, which treats water through a cooperative agreement with the city of Pendleton. Storm water would get retained onsite. Access would be provided off of south Market Road, a county facility, which would be improved to an industrial standard and provided with a dedicated right-hand turn lane into the site. Commercial utilities would be provided through extensions of existing services. During the second phase, the project would involve construction and operation of business facilities on the commercial lots. The second phase would be constructed and financed by individual business owners. Anticipated light industrial operations would include warehousing, distribution, and assembly services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would result in a 142-acre development, with 13 lots, ranging in size from six to 13 acres, made available for development and leasing. Building sizes would range from 15,000 square feet to 400,000 square feet. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $4.44 million; this sum would be financed by lease revenues and by available tribal, state, and federal investment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to boosting the tribal economy, enabling tribal authorities to better govern their resources, the park would provide siting for development of needed service industries in the region. Approximately 546 jobs would be created due to the park development and operation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The gravel road providing access to the Oregon Department of Transportation's gravel shed south of I-84 would be removed, through alternative access would be constructed. Patawa Creek would be affected by site development, though these impacts would be mitigated by the development of a stormwater drainage system that would isolate storm water runoff from the creek. creation of a riparian management zone along the creek, incorporation of best management practices to reduce groundwater impacts, incorporation of landscaping and night lighting design to reduce visual impacts, avoidance of cultural resource sites within the creek corridor, and designing a bridge across the creek to minimize creek impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050520, 241 pages, December 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Industrial Parks KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Water Supply KW - Oregon KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368132?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+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, Pendleton, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 2 of 12] T2 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36368085; 050163D-050520_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a light industrial and commercial business park on a 520-acre site south of Interstate 84 (I-84) at Exit 216 and west of South Market Road seven miles east of Pendleton, Umatilla County, Oregon are proposed by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The site, to be known as the Coyote Business Park, would be developed in phases. The first phase would consist of construction of infrastructure for the park, including extension of domestic water supply, drain fields or sanitary sewers, storm water drainage facilities, roads, and utilities to the proposed commercial lots. In the first phase, the proponent would also proposed replacement power support structures within the high-voltage Bonneville Power Administration line that crosses the site. Water would be provided either from a new onsite well or from the Mission Water System. Wastewater would be handled by either onsite septic and drain field systems or by connection to the Mission Wastewater Collection System, which treats water through a cooperative agreement with the city of Pendleton. Storm water would get retained onsite. Access would be provided off of south Market Road, a county facility, which would be improved to an industrial standard and provided with a dedicated right-hand turn lane into the site. Commercial utilities would be provided through extensions of existing services. During the second phase, the project would involve construction and operation of business facilities on the commercial lots. The second phase would be constructed and financed by individual business owners. Anticipated light industrial operations would include warehousing, distribution, and assembly services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would result in a 142-acre development, with 13 lots, ranging in size from six to 13 acres, made available for development and leasing. Building sizes would range from 15,000 square feet to 400,000 square feet. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $4.44 million; this sum would be financed by lease revenues and by available tribal, state, and federal investment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to boosting the tribal economy, enabling tribal authorities to better govern their resources, the park would provide siting for development of needed service industries in the region. Approximately 546 jobs would be created due to the park development and operation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The gravel road providing access to the Oregon Department of Transportation's gravel shed south of I-84 would be removed, through alternative access would be constructed. Patawa Creek would be affected by site development, though these impacts would be mitigated by the development of a stormwater drainage system that would isolate storm water runoff from the creek. creation of a riparian management zone along the creek, incorporation of best management practices to reduce groundwater impacts, incorporation of landscaping and night lighting design to reduce visual impacts, avoidance of cultural resource sites within the creek corridor, and designing a bridge across the creek to minimize creek impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050520, 241 pages, December 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Industrial Parks KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Water Supply KW - Oregon KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368085?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+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, Pendleton, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 8 of 12] T2 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36365598; 050163D-050520_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a light industrial and commercial business park on a 520-acre site south of Interstate 84 (I-84) at Exit 216 and west of South Market Road seven miles east of Pendleton, Umatilla County, Oregon are proposed by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The site, to be known as the Coyote Business Park, would be developed in phases. The first phase would consist of construction of infrastructure for the park, including extension of domestic water supply, drain fields or sanitary sewers, storm water drainage facilities, roads, and utilities to the proposed commercial lots. In the first phase, the proponent would also proposed replacement power support structures within the high-voltage Bonneville Power Administration line that crosses the site. Water would be provided either from a new onsite well or from the Mission Water System. Wastewater would be handled by either onsite septic and drain field systems or by connection to the Mission Wastewater Collection System, which treats water through a cooperative agreement with the city of Pendleton. Storm water would get retained onsite. Access would be provided off of south Market Road, a county facility, which would be improved to an industrial standard and provided with a dedicated right-hand turn lane into the site. Commercial utilities would be provided through extensions of existing services. During the second phase, the project would involve construction and operation of business facilities on the commercial lots. The second phase would be constructed and financed by individual business owners. Anticipated light industrial operations would include warehousing, distribution, and assembly services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would result in a 142-acre development, with 13 lots, ranging in size from six to 13 acres, made available for development and leasing. Building sizes would range from 15,000 square feet to 400,000 square feet. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $4.44 million; this sum would be financed by lease revenues and by available tribal, state, and federal investment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to boosting the tribal economy, enabling tribal authorities to better govern their resources, the park would provide siting for development of needed service industries in the region. Approximately 546 jobs would be created due to the park development and operation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The gravel road providing access to the Oregon Department of Transportation's gravel shed south of I-84 would be removed, through alternative access would be constructed. Patawa Creek would be affected by site development, though these impacts would be mitigated by the development of a stormwater drainage system that would isolate storm water runoff from the creek. creation of a riparian management zone along the creek, incorporation of best management practices to reduce groundwater impacts, incorporation of landscaping and night lighting design to reduce visual impacts, avoidance of cultural resource sites within the creek corridor, and designing a bridge across the creek to minimize creek impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050520, 241 pages, December 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Industrial Parks KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Water Supply KW - Oregon KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365598?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+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, Pendleton, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE ARIZONA STRIP FIELD OFFICE AND VERMILLION CLIFFS NATIONAL MONUMENT AND BLM PORTION OF GRAND CANYON-PARASHANT NATIONAL MONUMENT AND GEENRAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE NPS PORTION OF THE GRAND CANYON-PARASHANT NATIONAL MONUMENT, COCONINO AND MOHAVE COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 16355629; 11836 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan for the Arizona Strip of Coconino and Mohave counties, Arizona 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 un-fragmented, 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 monument 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 draft 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 sue/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 remove 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, cayoneering,, 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 vehicle. 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. JF - EPA number: 050521, Volume 1--671 pages, Volume 1--642 pages, December 9, 2005 PY - 2005 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/16355629?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-09&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+BLM+PORTION+OF+GRAND+CANYON-PARASHANT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+GEENRAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+NPS+PORTION+OF+THE+GRAND+CANYON-PARASHANT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+ARIZONA+STRIP+FIELD+OFFICE+AND+VERMILLION+CLIFFS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+BLM+PORTION+OF+GRAND+CANYON-PARASHANT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+GEENRAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+NPS+PORTION+OF+THE+GRAND+CANYON-PARASHANT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+COCONINO+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTIES%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COYOTE BUSINESS PARK, UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 16340069; 11835 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a light industrial and commercial business park on a 520-acre site south of Interstate 84 (I-84) at Exit 216 and west of South Market Road seven miles east of Pendleton, Umatilla County, Oregon are proposed by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The site, to be known as the Coyote Business Park, would be developed in phases. The first phase would consist of construction of infrastructure for the park, including extension of domestic water supply, drain fields or sanitary sewers, storm water drainage facilities, roads, and utilities to the proposed commercial lots. In the first phase, the proponent would also proposed replacement power support structures within the high-voltage Bonneville Power Administration line that crosses the site. Water would be provided either from a new onsite well or from the Mission Water System. Wastewater would be handled by either onsite septic and drain field systems or by connection to the Mission Wastewater Collection System, which treats water through a cooperative agreement with the city of Pendleton. Storm water would get retained onsite. Access would be provided off of south Market Road, a county facility, which would be improved to an industrial standard and provided with a dedicated right-hand turn lane into the site. Commercial utilities would be provided through extensions of existing services. During the second phase, the project would involve construction and operation of business facilities on the commercial lots. The second phase would be constructed and financed by individual business owners. Anticipated light industrial operations would include warehousing, distribution, and assembly services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would result in a 142-acre development, with 13 lots, ranging in size from six to 13 acres, made available for development and leasing. Building sizes would range from 15,000 square feet to 400,000 square feet. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $4.44 million; this sum would be financed by lease revenues and by available tribal, state, and federal investment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to boosting the tribal economy, enabling tribal authorities to better govern their resources, the park would provide siting for development of needed service industries in the region. Approximately 546 jobs would be created due to the park development and operation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The gravel road providing access to the Oregon Department of Transportation's gravel shed south of I-84 would be removed, through alternative access would be constructed. Patawa Creek would be affected by site development, though these impacts would be mitigated by the development of a stormwater drainage system that would isolate storm water runoff from the creek. creation of a riparian management zone along the creek, incorporation of best management practices to reduce groundwater impacts, incorporation of landscaping and night lighting design to reduce visual impacts, avoidance of cultural resource sites within the creek corridor, and designing a bridge across the creek to minimize creek impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050520, 241 pages, December 9, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Bridges KW - Commercial Zones KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Industrial Parks KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Water Supply KW - Oregon KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16340069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=COYOTE+BUSINESS+PARK%2C+UMATILLA+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+UMATILLA+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, Pendleton, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BIG THICKET NATIONAL PRESERVE, HARDIN, JEFFERSON, ORANGE, LIBERTY, TYLER, JASPER, AND POLK COUNTRIES, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BIG THICKET NATIONAL PRESERVE, HARDIN, JEFFERSON, ORANGE, LIBERTY, TYLER, JASPER, AND POLK COUNTRIES, TEXAS. AN - 36390851; 11837-050522_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an oil and gas management plan in the Big Thicket National Preserve of Hardin, Jefferson, Orange, Liberty, Tyler, Jasper, and Polk countries, Texas. The area currently sites nine nonfederal oil and gas operations, including 34 directional wells that were drilled from outside the preserve to bottomholes beneath the preserve, and 57 transpark oil and gas pipelines. The preserve contains 16 units; however, this final EIS addresses only 12 units, comprising 88,132 acres. 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 include provisions allowing geophysical exploration operations, with a surface use prohibition stipulation, on 75,293 acres; enforcing timing stipulations with respect to geophysical exploration operations on 11,512 acres or within 500 feet of waterways and within 52,272 acres of bird hot spots and hunting areas; and prohibiting drilling and production surface uses on up to 46,273 acres. Affected areas would be reclaimed. Alternative C, the environmentally preferred alternative, would include provisions allowing geophysical exploration operations, with a surface use prohibition stipulation, on 75,293 acres; enforcing timing stipulations with respect to geophysical exploration operations on 39,657 acres or within 500 feet of waterways and within 52,272 acres of bird hot spots and hunting areas; and prohibiting drilling and production surface uses on up to 46,273 acres. Under either alternative B or C, all affected areas would be reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide better protection for SMAs, wetlands, fish and wildlife areas, geological SMAs, cultural resource sites, and recreational users, who would benefit from increased public safety. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some geophysical damage would occur. Drilling and production would result in short-term impacts to geological resource site. Soils and land would be disturbed, along with the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 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 93-439, as amended. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0294D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050522, 712 and maps, December 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 04-56 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Geologic Sites KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Reclamation KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Big Thicket National Preserve KW - Texas KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 93-439, as amended, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36390851?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BIG THICKET NATIONAL PRESERVE, HARDIN, JEFFERSON, ORANGE, LIBERTY, TYLER, JASPER, AND POLK COUNTRIES, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BIG THICKET NATIONAL PRESERVE, HARDIN, JEFFERSON, ORANGE, LIBERTY, TYLER, JASPER, AND POLK COUNTRIES, TEXAS. AN - 36389478; 11837-050522_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an oil and gas management plan in the Big Thicket National Preserve of Hardin, Jefferson, Orange, Liberty, Tyler, Jasper, and Polk countries, Texas. The area currently sites nine nonfederal oil and gas operations, including 34 directional wells that were drilled from outside the preserve to bottomholes beneath the preserve, and 57 transpark oil and gas pipelines. The preserve contains 16 units; however, this final EIS addresses only 12 units, comprising 88,132 acres. 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 include provisions allowing geophysical exploration operations, with a surface use prohibition stipulation, on 75,293 acres; enforcing timing stipulations with respect to geophysical exploration operations on 11,512 acres or within 500 feet of waterways and within 52,272 acres of bird hot spots and hunting areas; and prohibiting drilling and production surface uses on up to 46,273 acres. Affected areas would be reclaimed. Alternative C, the environmentally preferred alternative, would include provisions allowing geophysical exploration operations, with a surface use prohibition stipulation, on 75,293 acres; enforcing timing stipulations with respect to geophysical exploration operations on 39,657 acres or within 500 feet of waterways and within 52,272 acres of bird hot spots and hunting areas; and prohibiting drilling and production surface uses on up to 46,273 acres. Under either alternative B or C, all affected areas would be reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide better protection for SMAs, wetlands, fish and wildlife areas, geological SMAs, cultural resource sites, and recreational users, who would benefit from increased public safety. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some geophysical damage would occur. Drilling and production would result in short-term impacts to geological resource site. Soils and land would be disturbed, along with the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 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 93-439, as amended. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0294D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050522, 712 and maps, December 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 04-56 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Geologic Sites KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Reclamation KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Big Thicket National Preserve KW - Texas KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 93-439, as amended, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389478?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+BIG+THICKET+NATIONAL+PRESERVE%2C+HARDIN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORANGE%2C+LIBERTY%2C+TYLER%2C+JASPER%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTRIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+BIG+THICKET+NATIONAL+PRESERVE%2C+HARDIN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORANGE%2C+LIBERTY%2C+TYLER%2C+JASPER%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTRIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BIG THICKET NATIONAL PRESERVE, HARDIN, JEFFERSON, ORANGE, LIBERTY, TYLER, JASPER, AND POLK COUNTRIES, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BIG THICKET NATIONAL PRESERVE, HARDIN, JEFFERSON, ORANGE, LIBERTY, TYLER, JASPER, AND POLK COUNTRIES, TEXAS. AN - 36380946; 11837-050522_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an oil and gas management plan in the Big Thicket National Preserve of Hardin, Jefferson, Orange, Liberty, Tyler, Jasper, and Polk countries, Texas. The area currently sites nine nonfederal oil and gas operations, including 34 directional wells that were drilled from outside the preserve to bottomholes beneath the preserve, and 57 transpark oil and gas pipelines. The preserve contains 16 units; however, this final EIS addresses only 12 units, comprising 88,132 acres. 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 include provisions allowing geophysical exploration operations, with a surface use prohibition stipulation, on 75,293 acres; enforcing timing stipulations with respect to geophysical exploration operations on 11,512 acres or within 500 feet of waterways and within 52,272 acres of bird hot spots and hunting areas; and prohibiting drilling and production surface uses on up to 46,273 acres. Affected areas would be reclaimed. Alternative C, the environmentally preferred alternative, would include provisions allowing geophysical exploration operations, with a surface use prohibition stipulation, on 75,293 acres; enforcing timing stipulations with respect to geophysical exploration operations on 39,657 acres or within 500 feet of waterways and within 52,272 acres of bird hot spots and hunting areas; and prohibiting drilling and production surface uses on up to 46,273 acres. Under either alternative B or C, all affected areas would be reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide better protection for SMAs, wetlands, fish and wildlife areas, geological SMAs, cultural resource sites, and recreational users, who would benefit from increased public safety. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some geophysical damage would occur. Drilling and production would result in short-term impacts to geological resource site. Soils and land would be disturbed, along with the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 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 93-439, as amended. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0294D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050522, 712 and maps, December 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 04-56 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Geologic Sites KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Reclamation KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Big Thicket National Preserve KW - Texas KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 93-439, as amended, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+BIG+THICKET+NATIONAL+PRESERVE%2C+HARDIN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORANGE%2C+LIBERTY%2C+TYLER%2C+JASPER%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTRIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+BIG+THICKET+NATIONAL+PRESERVE%2C+HARDIN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORANGE%2C+LIBERTY%2C+TYLER%2C+JASPER%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTRIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BIG THICKET NATIONAL PRESERVE, HARDIN, JEFFERSON, ORANGE, LIBERTY, TYLER, JASPER, AND POLK COUNTRIES, TEXAS. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BIG THICKET NATIONAL PRESERVE, HARDIN, JEFFERSON, ORANGE, LIBERTY, TYLER, JASPER, AND POLK COUNTRIES, TEXAS. AN - 36379602; 11837-050522_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an oil and gas management plan in the Big Thicket National Preserve of Hardin, Jefferson, Orange, Liberty, Tyler, Jasper, and Polk countries, Texas. The area currently sites nine nonfederal oil and gas operations, including 34 directional wells that were drilled from outside the preserve to bottomholes beneath the preserve, and 57 transpark oil and gas pipelines. The preserve contains 16 units; however, this final EIS addresses only 12 units, comprising 88,132 acres. 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 include provisions allowing geophysical exploration operations, with a surface use prohibition stipulation, on 75,293 acres; enforcing timing stipulations with respect to geophysical exploration operations on 11,512 acres or within 500 feet of waterways and within 52,272 acres of bird hot spots and hunting areas; and prohibiting drilling and production surface uses on up to 46,273 acres. Affected areas would be reclaimed. Alternative C, the environmentally preferred alternative, would include provisions allowing geophysical exploration operations, with a surface use prohibition stipulation, on 75,293 acres; enforcing timing stipulations with respect to geophysical exploration operations on 39,657 acres or within 500 feet of waterways and within 52,272 acres of bird hot spots and hunting areas; and prohibiting drilling and production surface uses on up to 46,273 acres. Under either alternative B or C, all affected areas would be reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide better protection for SMAs, wetlands, fish and wildlife areas, geological SMAs, cultural resource sites, and recreational users, who would benefit from increased public safety. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some geophysical damage would occur. Drilling and production would result in short-term impacts to geological resource site. Soils and land would be disturbed, along with the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 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 93-439, as amended. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0294D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050522, 712 and maps, December 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 04-56 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Geologic Sites KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Reclamation KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Big Thicket National Preserve KW - Texas KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 93-439, as amended, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379602?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+BIG+THICKET+NATIONAL+PRESERVE%2C+HARDIN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORANGE%2C+LIBERTY%2C+TYLER%2C+JASPER%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTRIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+BIG+THICKET+NATIONAL+PRESERVE%2C+HARDIN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORANGE%2C+LIBERTY%2C+TYLER%2C+JASPER%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTRIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BIG THICKET NATIONAL PRESERVE, HARDIN, JEFFERSON, ORANGE, LIBERTY, TYLER, JASPER, AND POLK COUNTRIES, TEXAS. AN - 16344319; 11837 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an oil and gas management plan in the Big Thicket National Preserve of Hardin, Jefferson, Orange, Liberty, Tyler, Jasper, and Polk countries, Texas. The area currently sites nine nonfederal oil and gas operations, including 34 directional wells that were drilled from outside the preserve to bottomholes beneath the preserve, and 57 transpark oil and gas pipelines. The preserve contains 16 units; however, this final EIS addresses only 12 units, comprising 88,132 acres. 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 include provisions allowing geophysical exploration operations, with a surface use prohibition stipulation, on 75,293 acres; enforcing timing stipulations with respect to geophysical exploration operations on 11,512 acres or within 500 feet of waterways and within 52,272 acres of bird hot spots and hunting areas; and prohibiting drilling and production surface uses on up to 46,273 acres. Affected areas would be reclaimed. Alternative C, the environmentally preferred alternative, would include provisions allowing geophysical exploration operations, with a surface use prohibition stipulation, on 75,293 acres; enforcing timing stipulations with respect to geophysical exploration operations on 39,657 acres or within 500 feet of waterways and within 52,272 acres of bird hot spots and hunting areas; and prohibiting drilling and production surface uses on up to 46,273 acres. Under either alternative B or C, all affected areas would be reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide better protection for SMAs, wetlands, fish and wildlife areas, geological SMAs, cultural resource sites, and recreational users, who would benefit from increased public safety. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some geophysical damage would occur. Drilling and production would result in short-term impacts to geological resource site. Soils and land would be disturbed, along with the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 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 93-439, as amended. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0294D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050522, 712 and maps, December 8, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 04-56 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Geologic Sites KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Reclamation KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Big Thicket National Preserve KW - Texas KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 93-439, as amended, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16344319?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+BIG+THICKET+NATIONAL+PRESERVE%2C+HARDIN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORANGE%2C+LIBERTY%2C+TYLER%2C+JASPER%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTRIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+BIG+THICKET+NATIONAL+PRESERVE%2C+HARDIN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORANGE%2C+LIBERTY%2C+TYLER%2C+JASPER%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTRIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ATLANTIC RIM NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - ATLANTIC RIM NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36380592; 050021D-050518_0001 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 270,035-acre area with federal surface ownership of 173,672 acres, state ownership of 14,060 acres, and private ownership of 82,348 acres of private ownership. The development area currently contains 116 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 additional 2,000 wells, 1,800 and 2,000 coal beds, and 200 other formations, providing for well spacing of up to 80 acres. 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, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and two action alternatives. The preferred alterative is a combination of the two action alternatives, which would result in development as 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. 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 would be estimated at a maximum of 1,490. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the coal-related natural gas resources would degrade regional water bodies, 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.). JF - EPA number: 050518, 621 pages, December 6, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-06-002+1310 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 - Livestock KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Reclamation 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/36380592?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 6, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ATLANTIC RIM NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 16340794; 11833 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 270,035-acre area with federal surface ownership of 173,672 acres, state ownership of 14,060 acres, and private ownership of 82,348 acres of private ownership. The development area currently contains 116 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 additional 2,000 wells, 1,800 and 2,000 coal beds, and 200 other formations, providing for well spacing of up to 80 acres. 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, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and two action alternatives. The preferred alterative is a combination of the two action alternatives, which would result in development as 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. 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 would be estimated at a maximum of 1,490. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the coal-related natural gas resources would degrade regional water bodies, 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.). JF - EPA number: 050518, 621 pages, December 6, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-06-002+1310 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 - Livestock KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Reclamation 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/16340794?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ATLANTIC+RIM+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=ATLANTIC+RIM+NATURAL+GAS+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+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 - Draft. Preparation date: December 6, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT KING NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK, OCALA, FLORIDA. AN - 36437330; 11830 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 draft 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 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 $299,000 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 next 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. JF - EPA number: 050515, 96 pages, December 5, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-69 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/36437330?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&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, National Park Service; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 5, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT KING NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK, OCALA, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - FORT KING NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK, OCALA, FLORIDA. AN - 36366172; 050095D-050515_0001 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 draft 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 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 $299,000 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 next 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. JF - EPA number: 050515, 96 pages, December 5, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-69 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/36366172?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-05&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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 5, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROCK CREEK PARK AND THE ROCK CREEK AND POTOMAC PARKWAY, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - ROCK CREEK PARK AND THE ROCK CREEK AND POTOMAC PARKWAY, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 36386149; 11827-050512_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for Rock Creek Park and the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway in the District of Columbia is proposed. The area covered by the plan includes 1,754 acres administered by the National Park Service in the Rock Creek valley from the Maryland state line south to the National Zoo, the two-mile-long Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway extending from the National Zoo to Virginia Avenue, lands along selected tributaries of Rock Creek, and roadways that are associated with these areas. A pivotal management issue to be resolved by the plan involved the use of park roads by commuters on weekdays. This issue includes determining the appropriate level of commuter traffic in Rock Creek Park and the degree to which park values would be affected by such use. The other two key management issues are the currently limited ability to provide orientation, interpretation and educational services to visitors to the park and the problems that park administrative and operation activities encounter at their present locations in historic structures. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B), which would continue the current management pattern, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would retain the existing park roadway system would be retained and non-recreational through-traffic would be accommodated. However, to improve visitor safety and the quality of visitor experience, traffic-calming devices such as speed tables would be installed on Beach Drive to reduce columns and seeds compared to those that would occur if the current management plan were perpetuated unchanged. Alternative A would also include the upgrading of some trails and construction of up to 1.75 miles of new trail; rehabilitation of the Peirce Mill complex to focus on the history of milling and land use in the area; relocation of park administrative offices out of the Peirce-Klingle Mansion at Linnean Hill to commercial space outside the park or to other office space within the park; rehabilitation of the Linnean Hill complex; relocation of the U.S. Park Service substation out of the Lodge House on Beach Drive at Joyce Road to commercial space outside the park or to other office space within the park; conversion of Lodge House to a visitor contact station; and rehabilitation and expansion of the nature center and upgrading of the planetarium to improve the effectiveness of public programs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives would improve management of the resources of the park and the associated parkway. The preferred alternative, and any of the other action alternatives, would enhance native wildlife habitat, historic structures, and cultural landscapes, as well as visitor safety. Alternative D would represent a compromise between traffic use and non-motorized recreation. Air quality within the valley would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Access to and from the downtown area during morning and evening peak hours would be limited somewhat and traffic on routes parallel to Beach Drive would increase significantly due to the diversion of traffic from Beach Drive. Traffic movements on Beach Drive during peak hours would slow somewhat, increasing travel times through northwest Washington. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (P.L. Chapter 408, 39 Stat. 535), and Public Buildings Act of 1913. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0306D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050512, 402 pages, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Rock Creek Park KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Buildings Act of 1913, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36386149?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&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, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 39 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36384932; 050147D-050510_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 39 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36384932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 36 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36384655; 050147D-050510_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36384655?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 26 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36384397; 050147D-050510_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36384397?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 10 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36382645; 050147D-050510_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36382645?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 12 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36382542; 050147D-050510_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36382542?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 2 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36382396; 050147D-050510_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36382396?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROCK CREEK PARK AND THE ROCK CREEK AND POTOMAC PARKWAY, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - ROCK CREEK PARK AND THE ROCK CREEK AND POTOMAC PARKWAY, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 36382340; 11827-050512_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for Rock Creek Park and the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway in the District of Columbia is proposed. The area covered by the plan includes 1,754 acres administered by the National Park Service in the Rock Creek valley from the Maryland state line south to the National Zoo, the two-mile-long Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway extending from the National Zoo to Virginia Avenue, lands along selected tributaries of Rock Creek, and roadways that are associated with these areas. A pivotal management issue to be resolved by the plan involved the use of park roads by commuters on weekdays. This issue includes determining the appropriate level of commuter traffic in Rock Creek Park and the degree to which park values would be affected by such use. The other two key management issues are the currently limited ability to provide orientation, interpretation and educational services to visitors to the park and the problems that park administrative and operation activities encounter at their present locations in historic structures. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B), which would continue the current management pattern, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would retain the existing park roadway system would be retained and non-recreational through-traffic would be accommodated. However, to improve visitor safety and the quality of visitor experience, traffic-calming devices such as speed tables would be installed on Beach Drive to reduce columns and seeds compared to those that would occur if the current management plan were perpetuated unchanged. Alternative A would also include the upgrading of some trails and construction of up to 1.75 miles of new trail; rehabilitation of the Peirce Mill complex to focus on the history of milling and land use in the area; relocation of park administrative offices out of the Peirce-Klingle Mansion at Linnean Hill to commercial space outside the park or to other office space within the park; rehabilitation of the Linnean Hill complex; relocation of the U.S. Park Service substation out of the Lodge House on Beach Drive at Joyce Road to commercial space outside the park or to other office space within the park; conversion of Lodge House to a visitor contact station; and rehabilitation and expansion of the nature center and upgrading of the planetarium to improve the effectiveness of public programs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives would improve management of the resources of the park and the associated parkway. The preferred alternative, and any of the other action alternatives, would enhance native wildlife habitat, historic structures, and cultural landscapes, as well as visitor safety. Alternative D would represent a compromise between traffic use and non-motorized recreation. Air quality within the valley would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Access to and from the downtown area during morning and evening peak hours would be limited somewhat and traffic on routes parallel to Beach Drive would increase significantly due to the diversion of traffic from Beach Drive. Traffic movements on Beach Drive during peak hours would slow somewhat, increasing travel times through northwest Washington. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (P.L. Chapter 408, 39 Stat. 535), and Public Buildings Act of 1913. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0306D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050512, 402 pages, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Rock Creek Park KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Buildings Act of 1913, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382340?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+AND+THE+ROCK+CREEK+AND+POTOMAC+PARKWAY%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+AND+THE+ROCK+CREEK+AND+POTOMAC+PARKWAY%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 27 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36382073; 050147D-050510_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36382073?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 32 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36382026; 050147D-050510_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36382026?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 22 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36381956; 050147D-050510_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36381956?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 11 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36381160; 050147D-050510_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36381160?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 25 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36380943; 050147D-050510_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36380943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROCK CREEK PARK AND THE ROCK CREEK AND POTOMAC PARKWAY, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - ROCK CREEK PARK AND THE ROCK CREEK AND POTOMAC PARKWAY, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 36380416; 11827-050512_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for Rock Creek Park and the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway in the District of Columbia is proposed. The area covered by the plan includes 1,754 acres administered by the National Park Service in the Rock Creek valley from the Maryland state line south to the National Zoo, the two-mile-long Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway extending from the National Zoo to Virginia Avenue, lands along selected tributaries of Rock Creek, and roadways that are associated with these areas. A pivotal management issue to be resolved by the plan involved the use of park roads by commuters on weekdays. This issue includes determining the appropriate level of commuter traffic in Rock Creek Park and the degree to which park values would be affected by such use. The other two key management issues are the currently limited ability to provide orientation, interpretation and educational services to visitors to the park and the problems that park administrative and operation activities encounter at their present locations in historic structures. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B), which would continue the current management pattern, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would retain the existing park roadway system would be retained and non-recreational through-traffic would be accommodated. However, to improve visitor safety and the quality of visitor experience, traffic-calming devices such as speed tables would be installed on Beach Drive to reduce columns and seeds compared to those that would occur if the current management plan were perpetuated unchanged. Alternative A would also include the upgrading of some trails and construction of up to 1.75 miles of new trail; rehabilitation of the Peirce Mill complex to focus on the history of milling and land use in the area; relocation of park administrative offices out of the Peirce-Klingle Mansion at Linnean Hill to commercial space outside the park or to other office space within the park; rehabilitation of the Linnean Hill complex; relocation of the U.S. Park Service substation out of the Lodge House on Beach Drive at Joyce Road to commercial space outside the park or to other office space within the park; conversion of Lodge House to a visitor contact station; and rehabilitation and expansion of the nature center and upgrading of the planetarium to improve the effectiveness of public programs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives would improve management of the resources of the park and the associated parkway. The preferred alternative, and any of the other action alternatives, would enhance native wildlife habitat, historic structures, and cultural landscapes, as well as visitor safety. Alternative D would represent a compromise between traffic use and non-motorized recreation. Air quality within the valley would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Access to and from the downtown area during morning and evening peak hours would be limited somewhat and traffic on routes parallel to Beach Drive would increase significantly due to the diversion of traffic from Beach Drive. Traffic movements on Beach Drive during peak hours would slow somewhat, increasing travel times through northwest Washington. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (P.L. Chapter 408, 39 Stat. 535), and Public Buildings Act of 1913. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0306D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050512, 402 pages, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Rock Creek Park KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Buildings Act of 1913, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380416?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+AND+THE+ROCK+CREEK+AND+POTOMAC+PARKWAY%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+AND+THE+ROCK+CREEK+AND+POTOMAC+PARKWAY%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 24 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36380150; 050147D-050510_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36380150?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 20 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36377937; 050147D-050510_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36377937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 15 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36375110; 050147D-050510_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36375110?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 7 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36374041; 050147D-050510_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36374041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 9 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36372847; 050147D-050510_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36372847?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 29 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36372742; 050147D-050510_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36372742?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 28 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36372623; 050147D-050510_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36372623?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&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 Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SHEEP COMPLEX, BIG SPRINGS, AND OWYHEE GRAZING ALLOTMENTS SENSITIVE BIRD SPECIES, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SHEEP COMPLEX, BIG SPRINGS, AND OWYHEE GRAZING ALLOTMENTS SENSITIVE BIRD SPECIES, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36371637; 11822-050507_0001 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 draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would implement each of the multiple-use decisions, which includes changes to the permitted grazing system and range improvement projects. The two other alternatives would also implement each of the multiple-use decisions. Alternative BLM's preferred alternative is to implement the multiple-use decisions. 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.). JF - EPA number: 050507, 143 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/EKES-06/006+1791 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/36371637?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SHEEP+COMPLEX%2C+BIG+SPRINGS%2C+AND+OWYHEE+GRAZING+ALLOTMENTS+SENSITIVE+BIRD+SPECIES%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SHEEP+COMPLEX%2C+BIG+SPRINGS%2C+AND+OWYHEE+GRAZING+ALLOTMENTS+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 21 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36370348; 050147D-050510_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36370348?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 19 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36370288; 050147D-050510_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36370288?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 14 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36370198; 050147D-050510_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36370198?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 34 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36370112; 050147D-050510_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36370112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 33 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36370051; 050147D-050510_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36370051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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 Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 17 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36369545; 050147D-050510_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36369545?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 35 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36369376; 050147D-050510_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36369376?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 6 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36369345; 050147D-050510_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36369345?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 37 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36369064; 050147D-050510_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36369064?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 18 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36369002; 050147D-050510_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36369002?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 13 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36368930; 050147D-050510_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36368930?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROCK CREEK PARK AND THE ROCK CREEK AND POTOMAC PARKWAY, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - ROCK CREEK PARK AND THE ROCK CREEK AND POTOMAC PARKWAY, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 36368861; 11827-050512_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for Rock Creek Park and the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway in the District of Columbia is proposed. The area covered by the plan includes 1,754 acres administered by the National Park Service in the Rock Creek valley from the Maryland state line south to the National Zoo, the two-mile-long Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway extending from the National Zoo to Virginia Avenue, lands along selected tributaries of Rock Creek, and roadways that are associated with these areas. A pivotal management issue to be resolved by the plan involved the use of park roads by commuters on weekdays. This issue includes determining the appropriate level of commuter traffic in Rock Creek Park and the degree to which park values would be affected by such use. The other two key management issues are the currently limited ability to provide orientation, interpretation and educational services to visitors to the park and the problems that park administrative and operation activities encounter at their present locations in historic structures. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B), which would continue the current management pattern, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would retain the existing park roadway system would be retained and non-recreational through-traffic would be accommodated. However, to improve visitor safety and the quality of visitor experience, traffic-calming devices such as speed tables would be installed on Beach Drive to reduce columns and seeds compared to those that would occur if the current management plan were perpetuated unchanged. Alternative A would also include the upgrading of some trails and construction of up to 1.75 miles of new trail; rehabilitation of the Peirce Mill complex to focus on the history of milling and land use in the area; relocation of park administrative offices out of the Peirce-Klingle Mansion at Linnean Hill to commercial space outside the park or to other office space within the park; rehabilitation of the Linnean Hill complex; relocation of the U.S. Park Service substation out of the Lodge House on Beach Drive at Joyce Road to commercial space outside the park or to other office space within the park; conversion of Lodge House to a visitor contact station; and rehabilitation and expansion of the nature center and upgrading of the planetarium to improve the effectiveness of public programs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives would improve management of the resources of the park and the associated parkway. The preferred alternative, and any of the other action alternatives, would enhance native wildlife habitat, historic structures, and cultural landscapes, as well as visitor safety. Alternative D would represent a compromise between traffic use and non-motorized recreation. Air quality within the valley would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Access to and from the downtown area during morning and evening peak hours would be limited somewhat and traffic on routes parallel to Beach Drive would increase significantly due to the diversion of traffic from Beach Drive. Traffic movements on Beach Drive during peak hours would slow somewhat, increasing travel times through northwest Washington. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (P.L. Chapter 408, 39 Stat. 535), and Public Buildings Act of 1913. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0306D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050512, 402 pages, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Rock Creek Park KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Buildings Act of 1913, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368861?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+AND+THE+ROCK+CREEK+AND+POTOMAC+PARKWAY%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+AND+THE+ROCK+CREEK+AND+POTOMAC+PARKWAY%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 16 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36366678; 050147D-050510_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36366678?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 31 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36366320; 050147D-050510_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36366320?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 5 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36365876; 050147D-050510_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36365876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 3 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36365759; 050147D-050510_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36365759?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 23 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36365663; 050147D-050510_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36365663?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. [Part 1 of 39] T2 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 36365477; 050147D-050510_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36365477?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROCK CREEK PARK AND THE ROCK CREEK AND POTOMAC PARKWAY, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 16357949; 11827 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for Rock Creek Park and the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway in the District of Columbia is proposed. The area covered by the plan includes 1,754 acres administered by the National Park Service in the Rock Creek valley from the Maryland state line south to the National Zoo, the two-mile-long Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway extending from the National Zoo to Virginia Avenue, lands along selected tributaries of Rock Creek, and roadways that are associated with these areas. A pivotal management issue to be resolved by the plan involved the use of park roads by commuters on weekdays. This issue includes determining the appropriate level of commuter traffic in Rock Creek Park and the degree to which park values would be affected by such use. The other two key management issues are the currently limited ability to provide orientation, interpretation and educational services to visitors to the park and the problems that park administrative and operation activities encounter at their present locations in historic structures. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B), which would continue the current management pattern, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would retain the existing park roadway system would be retained and non-recreational through-traffic would be accommodated. However, to improve visitor safety and the quality of visitor experience, traffic-calming devices such as speed tables would be installed on Beach Drive to reduce columns and seeds compared to those that would occur if the current management plan were perpetuated unchanged. Alternative A would also include the upgrading of some trails and construction of up to 1.75 miles of new trail; rehabilitation of the Peirce Mill complex to focus on the history of milling and land use in the area; relocation of park administrative offices out of the Peirce-Klingle Mansion at Linnean Hill to commercial space outside the park or to other office space within the park; rehabilitation of the Linnean Hill complex; relocation of the U.S. Park Service substation out of the Lodge House on Beach Drive at Joyce Road to commercial space outside the park or to other office space within the park; conversion of Lodge House to a visitor contact station; and rehabilitation and expansion of the nature center and upgrading of the planetarium to improve the effectiveness of public programs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: All action alternatives would improve management of the resources of the park and the associated parkway. The preferred alternative, and any of the other action alternatives, would enhance native wildlife habitat, historic structures, and cultural landscapes, as well as visitor safety. Alternative D would represent a compromise between traffic use and non-motorized recreation. Air quality within the valley would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Access to and from the downtown area during morning and evening peak hours would be limited somewhat and traffic on routes parallel to Beach Drive would increase significantly due to the diversion of traffic from Beach Drive. Traffic movements on Beach Drive during peak hours would slow somewhat, increasing travel times through northwest Washington. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (P.L. Chapter 408, 39 Stat. 535), and Public Buildings Act of 1913. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0306D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050512, 402 pages, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Rock Creek Park KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Buildings Act of 1913, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16357949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&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, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-81 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, VIRGINIA: FROM THE TENNESSEE BORDER TO THE WEST VIRGINIA BORDER. AN - 16355295; 11825 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements along Interstate 81 (I-81) in Virginia extending 325 miles from the Tennessee border to the West Virginia border is proposed. The study corridor extends in a southwest to northeast direction from western Virginia at the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and towns, and 13 counties. In addition to capacity deficiencies, the corridor is currently characterized by engineering design flaws the reduce vehicular maneuverability as well as sight distances. Accident rates along the corridor are excessive, particularly for trucks. This Tier 1 draft EIS addresses the need to increase capacity and improve safety along the corridor and evaluates conceptual-level improvements in addressing those needs. The concepts evaluated include the No-Build Alternative, transportation systems management alternative, and a range of conceptual build alternatives consisting of roadway improvements and improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along the existing rail lines, ranging in length from les than 0.5 mile to 10 miles; most of the study sections are between one and two miles. For both the rail and the highway improvements, the rights-of-way corridor was set out to extend 500 feet from either side of the facility centerline. For the highway build concepts, No Toll, Low Toll, and High Toll scenarios are assessed. Upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions would be made on the improvement concepts for the roadway and rail facilities; on advancing I-81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century; on the projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studies during Tier 2; on levels of Tier 2 environmental documents for those projects; and on the location of the corridor for studying alignments during Tier 2 analyses. Costs of the rail and highway alternatives, respectively, range from $100,000 million to $3.7 billion and from $5.1 billion to $7.5 billion. Costs of combination rail/road concepts range from $5.6 billion to $8.0 billion. Separated lane highway construction costs range fro $11.2 million to $13 billion. All foregoing costs are expressed in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of lanes to the I-81 corridor, as proposed, would significantly increase the capacity and safety of the facility. Adjustments to highway geometrics would further address safety problems, particularly with those related to turning speeds and sight distances. Rail improvements would decrease truck and passenger vehicle traffic within the highway corridor and reduce the associated air pollutant levels. Improved transportation would boost local economies, easing the movement of employees and other travelers and of goods and services across the state. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of over 7,000 acres of developed land, 1,000 acres of farmland, 41 to 71 acres of wetlands, 24.5 to 36.4 miles of stream, 411 to 580 acres of 100-year floodplain, 926 to 2,068 residences, 663 to 898 businesses, five community facilities, 53 to 86 parks acres of parks and other recreational lands, 12 to 34 acres of open space easements, 1,226 to 1,635 acres of battlefields, 52 to 51.5 acres within historic districts eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and 21 to 22 historic structures and one archaeological site eligible for inclusion in the register. Habitat for 13 or 13 special status species would be affected. A total of 20 block groups of minority populations and 27 low-income populations would experience disproportionate impacts. Highway facilities would mar visual aesthetic within 28 scenic areas. Nine hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. The levels of three transportation-related air pollutants would increase somewhat in the immediate corridor and, to a lesser degree, throughout the region. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050510, 258 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-05-04-T1D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/16355295?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.title=I-81+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+VIRGINIA%3A+FROM+THE+TENNESSEE+BORDER+TO+THE+WEST+VIRGINIA+BORDER.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LINCOLN BOYHOOD NATIONAL MEMORIAL, SPENCER AND LINCOLN COUNTIES, INDIANA. AN - 16354853; 11823 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial, Spencer County, Lincoln City, Indiana is proposed. The monument was designated by Congress in 1962 to preserve the site associated with the boyhood and family of President Abraham Lincoln, including a portion of the original Tom Lincoln farm and the nearby gravesite of Nancy Hanks Lincoln. The current general management plan is more than 20 years old and has reached the limit of its effective lifespan. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would emphasize interpretive opportunities, with an emphasis on the history of the Lincoln family in southern Indiana and on the natural and sociopolitical environments of the times. The memorial building, which would continue to be used for interpretation and orientation purposes, along with the court, would remain largely unchanged, but an addition would be added to the rear of the structure. Where possible, some elements of the cloister could be returned to the original design. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would clearly define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved at the memorial; provide an updated framework for memorial managers when making decisions about the best means to protect memorial resources, to provide for a diverse range of visitor experience opportunities, and manage visitor use and memorial facilities; and ensure that this foundation for decision making has been developed in consultation with interested stakeholders and adopted by memorial leadership after an adequate analysis of the benefits, impacts, and economic costs of alternative courses of action. Visitors would be provided with an array of interpretive opportunities available to them, and the overall character of the experience would be interactive and educational. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a proposed addition behind the memorial building could result in the loss of 0.5 acre or less of vegetation, including trees and open field and disruption of soils over the same area. The restoration of the historic roadway to the east of the memorial building and the provision of overflow parking would remove tree seedlings that were recently planted. The closure of a portion of County Road 300 within the national memorial would reduce accessibility within the local area. 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 87-407. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0560D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050508, 152 pages, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-42 KW - Buildings KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Indiana KW - Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 87-407, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16354853?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&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, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 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 - 16354516; 11822 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 draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would implement each of the multiple-use decisions, which includes changes to the permitted grazing system and range improvement projects. The two other alternatives would also implement each of the multiple-use decisions. Alternative BLM's preferred alternative is to implement the multiple-use decisions. 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.). JF - EPA number: 050507, 143 pages and maps, December 2, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/EKES-06/006+1791 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/16354516?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SHEEP+COMPLEX%2C+BIG+SPRINGS%2C+AND+OWYHEE+GRAZING+ALLOTMENTS+SENSITIVE+BIRD+SPECIES%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SHEEP+COMPLEX%2C+BIG+SPRINGS%2C+AND+OWYHEE+GRAZING+ALLOTMENTS+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, FROM MILE POST 116 TO MILE POST 260, BETWEEN GLENWOOD SPRINGS AND C-470, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO (PROJECT IM 0703-224). AN - 36410721; 11293 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements in the I-70 Mountain Corridor, from mile post 116 to mile post 260, between Glenwood Springs and C-470, Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado is proposed. This programmatic EIS takes a broad view of the transportation issues and considers alternatives to reduce further congestion, improve mobility, and enhance safety within the corridor. The EIS enables policy decisions focusing on mode of choice, general location improvements, and combinations of improvements and their combined functioning as a system to address corridor-wide transportation issues. Tier 2, the next stage in the decision-making process, will enable decisions regarding site-specific, project-level details on alignments, high capacity transit technology, project impacts, costs, and mitigation measures after a preferred alternative has been identified. The I-90 Corridor is the only contiguous east-west highway in the study area, serving as the lifeblood of east-west travel in Colorado. Existing congestion along the corridor is degrading the accessibility of mountain travel for Colorado residents, employees, tourists, and businesses. Travel demand in the corridor is projected to increase over the next 25 years and beyond. Alternatives in three transit areas, and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Transit options include dual-mode buses or diesel buses operating in a guideway. Highway options include a four- or six-lane highway, with a design speed of 65 miles per hour or 55 mph, respectively and reversible high-occupancy vehicle/high-occupancy/toll lanes (HOV/HOT). Alternatives representing a combination of highway and transit modes all include highway construction with rights-of-way preserved either for rail, an advanced guideway system, or dual mode buses or diesel buses operating in guideways. Currently preferred options include buses operating in a guideway, a six-lane highway, reversible HOV/HOT lanes. Preservation is defined. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternatives would provide the ability of accommodate travel demand, highway travel and transit times reductions, reduction in annual hours of congestion. Safety in the corridor would be enhanced. Project-level cost-effectiveness will be assured. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Transportation within the corridor, particularly automobile and truck traffic, would degrade air quality; displace key wildlife habitat and impede and endanger wildlife movements; degrade water quality, particularly due to storm runoff and the use of chemicals to control ice and snow; degrade fisheries, streams, riparian areas, wetlands, other waters of the US; affect visual aesthetics, displace residences and businesses, historic properties and paleontologic resource sites, recreational lands, and increase noise levels. Transportation energy consumption would increase significantly, particularly under modal options involving highways. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040554, 391 pages (oversized)); Appendices-- 571 pages and maps (oversized, November 30, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Ice Conditions KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Wetlands KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36410721?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&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 Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewoood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SEMINOE ROAD NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - SEMINOE ROAD NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36378690; 11813-050498_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a coalbed natural gas operation on a 137,000-acre tract located 20 miles northeast of Rawlins, Carbon County, Wyoming are proposed. During the summer of 2001, the applicant, Dudley and Associates, LLC, completed construction of the Seminoe Road coalbed Pilot Project to determine the commercial feasibility of producing as from local formations in this area. Sixteen pilot production projects and one pressure observation well were developed. Many of these wells have begun to produce small amounts of gas; however, the pilot project production results are still being analyzed. In addition, the federal authority prepared a separate environmental assessment for the installation of a compressor facility and a 20-mile-long, high-pressure pipeline from the pilot project to a commercial interconnect near Walcott, Wyoming. Key issues addressed during scoping for this draft EIS include those related to air quality, cultural resources, hydrology, land sue, noise levels, noxious weeds, health and safety, recreation resources, roads transportation, socioeconomics, soils, vegetation, visual resources, and wildlife habitat. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and the proposed action (Alternative B), are considered. Under the project at hand, the applicant, would drill and develop up to 1,240 wells on up to 785 well pads spaced at one well pad per 160 acres. Associated facilities would include roads, gas and water folection pipelines, compressor stations, water disposal systems, and an electric power supply system. Each phase of the project would involve drilling an average of 124 wells, with associated road construction and installation of ancillary water, gas, and electrical distribution lines. Construction and drilling activities would extend over a 10-year period. Approximately 60 percent of the initial site disturbance would be reclaimed after construction. Alternatives C and D would involve different means of discharge of water pumped from the wells, Alternative C would provide for direct discharge into surface flows differing from the surface flows used under Alternative B, while Alternative D would provide for underground injection of water. POSITIVE IMPACTS: If successful, the project would help provide for the supply o natural gas across the region as that energy source emerges as an important industrial and domestic fuel. The development of alternative natural gas sources would reduce the nation's dependence on foreign energy sources while providing a low-emissions fuel and boost the local economy via development of a traditional resource base. Construction and development activities would employ 80 to 110 workers over 10 years, while 40 to 60 workers would be employed during the operational phase and 30 to 50 workers during the reclamation phase. The project would allow federal resource managers a broad overview of the full development potential for coalbed natural gas resources in this portion of Wyoming and to obtain a general understanding of the effects and impacts that might occur with such a development. The project would provide a comprehensive analysis of the entire development potential of the area, thereby serving the interests of the federal agency administrating of the area and its resources as well as the applicant and the general public. Otherwise, these parties would have to resort to piecemeal analyses of commercial development "add-ons" to the applicants existing pilot project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Total disturbance for drill pads, access roads, and associated facilities, under the full build out scenario, would extend over 6,174 acres. Following reclamation pf initial site disturbances, 2,349 acres within the project tract would remain disturbed over the long-term; this area would be reclaimed over the estimated 30-year project life. Land disturbances would disturb or destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, increase soil erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface waters, and damage cultural resources, including sites of spiritual importance to Native Americans. Project features and the denuding of lands would degrade visual aesthetics and otherwise undermine the recreational value of the area LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050498, 757 pages, November 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/36378690?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEMINOE+ROAD+NATURAL+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=SEMINOE+ROAD+NATURAL+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+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, Rawlings, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SEMINOE ROAD NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - SEMINOE ROAD NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36368925; 11813-050498_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a coalbed natural gas operation on a 137,000-acre tract located 20 miles northeast of Rawlins, Carbon County, Wyoming are proposed. During the summer of 2001, the applicant, Dudley and Associates, LLC, completed construction of the Seminoe Road coalbed Pilot Project to determine the commercial feasibility of producing as from local formations in this area. Sixteen pilot production projects and one pressure observation well were developed. Many of these wells have begun to produce small amounts of gas; however, the pilot project production results are still being analyzed. In addition, the federal authority prepared a separate environmental assessment for the installation of a compressor facility and a 20-mile-long, high-pressure pipeline from the pilot project to a commercial interconnect near Walcott, Wyoming. Key issues addressed during scoping for this draft EIS include those related to air quality, cultural resources, hydrology, land sue, noise levels, noxious weeds, health and safety, recreation resources, roads transportation, socioeconomics, soils, vegetation, visual resources, and wildlife habitat. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and the proposed action (Alternative B), are considered. Under the project at hand, the applicant, would drill and develop up to 1,240 wells on up to 785 well pads spaced at one well pad per 160 acres. Associated facilities would include roads, gas and water folection pipelines, compressor stations, water disposal systems, and an electric power supply system. Each phase of the project would involve drilling an average of 124 wells, with associated road construction and installation of ancillary water, gas, and electrical distribution lines. Construction and drilling activities would extend over a 10-year period. Approximately 60 percent of the initial site disturbance would be reclaimed after construction. Alternatives C and D would involve different means of discharge of water pumped from the wells, Alternative C would provide for direct discharge into surface flows differing from the surface flows used under Alternative B, while Alternative D would provide for underground injection of water. POSITIVE IMPACTS: If successful, the project would help provide for the supply o natural gas across the region as that energy source emerges as an important industrial and domestic fuel. The development of alternative natural gas sources would reduce the nation's dependence on foreign energy sources while providing a low-emissions fuel and boost the local economy via development of a traditional resource base. Construction and development activities would employ 80 to 110 workers over 10 years, while 40 to 60 workers would be employed during the operational phase and 30 to 50 workers during the reclamation phase. The project would allow federal resource managers a broad overview of the full development potential for coalbed natural gas resources in this portion of Wyoming and to obtain a general understanding of the effects and impacts that might occur with such a development. The project would provide a comprehensive analysis of the entire development potential of the area, thereby serving the interests of the federal agency administrating of the area and its resources as well as the applicant and the general public. Otherwise, these parties would have to resort to piecemeal analyses of commercial development "add-ons" to the applicants existing pilot project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Total disturbance for drill pads, access roads, and associated facilities, under the full build out scenario, would extend over 6,174 acres. Following reclamation pf initial site disturbances, 2,349 acres within the project tract would remain disturbed over the long-term; this area would be reclaimed over the estimated 30-year project life. Land disturbances would disturb or destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, increase soil erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface waters, and damage cultural resources, including sites of spiritual importance to Native Americans. Project features and the denuding of lands would degrade visual aesthetics and otherwise undermine the recreational value of the area LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050498, 757 pages, November 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/36368925?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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, Rawlings, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SEMINOE ROAD NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - SEMINOE ROAD NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36365485; 11813-050498_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a coalbed natural gas operation on a 137,000-acre tract located 20 miles northeast of Rawlins, Carbon County, Wyoming are proposed. During the summer of 2001, the applicant, Dudley and Associates, LLC, completed construction of the Seminoe Road coalbed Pilot Project to determine the commercial feasibility of producing as from local formations in this area. Sixteen pilot production projects and one pressure observation well were developed. Many of these wells have begun to produce small amounts of gas; however, the pilot project production results are still being analyzed. In addition, the federal authority prepared a separate environmental assessment for the installation of a compressor facility and a 20-mile-long, high-pressure pipeline from the pilot project to a commercial interconnect near Walcott, Wyoming. Key issues addressed during scoping for this draft EIS include those related to air quality, cultural resources, hydrology, land sue, noise levels, noxious weeds, health and safety, recreation resources, roads transportation, socioeconomics, soils, vegetation, visual resources, and wildlife habitat. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and the proposed action (Alternative B), are considered. Under the project at hand, the applicant, would drill and develop up to 1,240 wells on up to 785 well pads spaced at one well pad per 160 acres. Associated facilities would include roads, gas and water folection pipelines, compressor stations, water disposal systems, and an electric power supply system. Each phase of the project would involve drilling an average of 124 wells, with associated road construction and installation of ancillary water, gas, and electrical distribution lines. Construction and drilling activities would extend over a 10-year period. Approximately 60 percent of the initial site disturbance would be reclaimed after construction. Alternatives C and D would involve different means of discharge of water pumped from the wells, Alternative C would provide for direct discharge into surface flows differing from the surface flows used under Alternative B, while Alternative D would provide for underground injection of water. POSITIVE IMPACTS: If successful, the project would help provide for the supply o natural gas across the region as that energy source emerges as an important industrial and domestic fuel. The development of alternative natural gas sources would reduce the nation's dependence on foreign energy sources while providing a low-emissions fuel and boost the local economy via development of a traditional resource base. Construction and development activities would employ 80 to 110 workers over 10 years, while 40 to 60 workers would be employed during the operational phase and 30 to 50 workers during the reclamation phase. The project would allow federal resource managers a broad overview of the full development potential for coalbed natural gas resources in this portion of Wyoming and to obtain a general understanding of the effects and impacts that might occur with such a development. The project would provide a comprehensive analysis of the entire development potential of the area, thereby serving the interests of the federal agency administrating of the area and its resources as well as the applicant and the general public. Otherwise, these parties would have to resort to piecemeal analyses of commercial development "add-ons" to the applicants existing pilot project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Total disturbance for drill pads, access roads, and associated facilities, under the full build out scenario, would extend over 6,174 acres. Following reclamation pf initial site disturbances, 2,349 acres within the project tract would remain disturbed over the long-term; this area would be reclaimed over the estimated 30-year project life. Land disturbances would disturb or destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, increase soil erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface waters, and damage cultural resources, including sites of spiritual importance to Native Americans. Project features and the denuding of lands would degrade visual aesthetics and otherwise undermine the recreational value of the area LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050498, 757 pages, November 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/36365485?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEMINOE+ROAD+NATURAL+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=SEMINOE+ROAD+NATURAL+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+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, Rawlings, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SEMINOE ROAD NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 16352597; 11813 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a coalbed natural gas operation on a 137,000-acre tract located 20 miles northeast of Rawlins, Carbon County, Wyoming are proposed. During the summer of 2001, the applicant, Dudley and Associates, LLC, completed construction of the Seminoe Road coalbed Pilot Project to determine the commercial feasibility of producing as from local formations in this area. Sixteen pilot production projects and one pressure observation well were developed. Many of these wells have begun to produce small amounts of gas; however, the pilot project production results are still being analyzed. In addition, the federal authority prepared a separate environmental assessment for the installation of a compressor facility and a 20-mile-long, high-pressure pipeline from the pilot project to a commercial interconnect near Walcott, Wyoming. Key issues addressed during scoping for this draft EIS include those related to air quality, cultural resources, hydrology, land sue, noise levels, noxious weeds, health and safety, recreation resources, roads transportation, socioeconomics, soils, vegetation, visual resources, and wildlife habitat. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and the proposed action (Alternative B), are considered. Under the project at hand, the applicant, would drill and develop up to 1,240 wells on up to 785 well pads spaced at one well pad per 160 acres. Associated facilities would include roads, gas and water folection pipelines, compressor stations, water disposal systems, and an electric power supply system. Each phase of the project would involve drilling an average of 124 wells, with associated road construction and installation of ancillary water, gas, and electrical distribution lines. Construction and drilling activities would extend over a 10-year period. Approximately 60 percent of the initial site disturbance would be reclaimed after construction. Alternatives C and D would involve different means of discharge of water pumped from the wells, Alternative C would provide for direct discharge into surface flows differing from the surface flows used under Alternative B, while Alternative D would provide for underground injection of water. POSITIVE IMPACTS: If successful, the project would help provide for the supply o natural gas across the region as that energy source emerges as an important industrial and domestic fuel. The development of alternative natural gas sources would reduce the nation's dependence on foreign energy sources while providing a low-emissions fuel and boost the local economy via development of a traditional resource base. Construction and development activities would employ 80 to 110 workers over 10 years, while 40 to 60 workers would be employed during the operational phase and 30 to 50 workers during the reclamation phase. The project would allow federal resource managers a broad overview of the full development potential for coalbed natural gas resources in this portion of Wyoming and to obtain a general understanding of the effects and impacts that might occur with such a development. The project would provide a comprehensive analysis of the entire development potential of the area, thereby serving the interests of the federal agency administrating of the area and its resources as well as the applicant and the general public. Otherwise, these parties would have to resort to piecemeal analyses of commercial development "add-ons" to the applicants existing pilot project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Total disturbance for drill pads, access roads, and associated facilities, under the full build out scenario, would extend over 6,174 acres. Following reclamation pf initial site disturbances, 2,349 acres within the project tract would remain disturbed over the long-term; this area would be reclaimed over the estimated 30-year project life. Land disturbances would disturb or destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, increase soil erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface waters, and damage cultural resources, including sites of spiritual importance to Native Americans. Project features and the denuding of lands would degrade visual aesthetics and otherwise undermine the recreational value of the area LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050498, 757 pages, November 23, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/16352597?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&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, Rawlings, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36443141; 11808 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Defense Programs 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/36443141?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 15 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36384518; 060008D-050493_0015 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 15 KW - Defense Programs 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/36384518?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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, National Park Service, Pea Ridge, Arkansas; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 30 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36384264; 060008D-050493_0030 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 30 KW - Defense Programs 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/36384264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 3 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36383903; 060008D-050493_0003 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Defense Programs 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/36383903?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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, National Park Service, Pea Ridge, Arkansas; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 8 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36383664; 060008D-050493_0008 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Defense Programs 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/36383664?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 22 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36382293; 060008D-050493_0022 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 22 KW - Defense Programs 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/36382293?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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, National Park Service, Pea Ridge, Arkansas; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 21 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36382182; 060008D-050493_0021 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 21 KW - Defense Programs 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/36382182?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 23 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36381968; 060008D-050493_0023 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 23 KW - Defense Programs 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/36381968?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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, National Park Service, Pea Ridge, Arkansas; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 33 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36381856; 060008D-050493_0033 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 33 KW - Defense Programs 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/36381856?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 14 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36381218; 060008D-050493_0014 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 14 KW - Defense Programs 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/36381218?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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, National Park Service, Pea Ridge, Arkansas; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 9 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36381134; 060008D-050493_0009 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 9 KW - Defense Programs 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/36381134?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 17 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36381051; 060008D-050493_0017 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 17 KW - Defense Programs 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/36381051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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, National Park Service, Pea Ridge, Arkansas; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 19 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36380256; 060008D-050493_0019 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 19 KW - Defense Programs 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/36380256?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 13 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36380125; 060008D-050493_0013 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 13 KW - Defense Programs 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/36380125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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, National Park Service, Pea Ridge, Arkansas; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 34 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36380055; 060008D-050493_0034 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 34 KW - Defense Programs 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/36380055?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 7 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36380051; 060008D-050493_0007 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Defense Programs 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/36380051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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, National Park Service, Pea Ridge, Arkansas; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 4 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36379864; 060008D-050493_0004 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Defense Programs 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/36379864?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 18 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36373947; 060008D-050493_0018 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 18 KW - Defense Programs 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/36373947?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&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, National Park Service, Pea Ridge, Arkansas; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 16 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36373818; 060008D-050493_0016 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 16 KW - Defense Programs 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/36373818?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 29 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36372532; 060008D-050493_0029 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 29 KW - Defense Programs 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/36372532?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 28 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36372433; 060008D-050493_0028 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 28 KW - Defense Programs 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/36372433?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 2 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36372344; 060008D-050493_0002 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Defense Programs 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/36372344?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 1 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36372257; 060008D-050493_0001 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs 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/36372257?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 11 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36371789; 060008D-050493_0011 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 11 KW - Defense Programs 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/36371789?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 10 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36371708; 060008D-050493_0010 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 10 KW - Defense Programs 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/36371708?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 6 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36371628; 060008D-050493_0006 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Defense Programs 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/36371628?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 5 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36371533; 060008D-050493_0005 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Defense Programs 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/36371533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 20 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36369295; 060008D-050493_0020 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 20 KW - Defense Programs 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/36369295?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 25 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36369229; 060008D-050493_0025 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 25 KW - Defense Programs 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/36369229?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 31 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36368903; 060008D-050493_0031 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 31 KW - Defense Programs 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/36368903?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 12 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36368691; 060008D-050493_0012 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 12 KW - Defense Programs 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/36368691?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 24 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36368242; 060008D-050493_0024 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 24 KW - Defense Programs 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/36368242?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 26 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36368174; 060008D-050493_0026 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 26 KW - Defense Programs 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/36368174?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 32 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36368164; 060008D-050493_0032 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 32 KW - Defense Programs 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/36368164?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. [Part 27 of 34] T2 - PEA RIDGE NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, ARKANSAS. AN - 36368111; 060008D-050493_0027 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 nest 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 choices 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 ares 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. JF - EPA number: 050493, 153 pages, November 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 27 KW - Defense Programs 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/36368111?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-16&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 11 of 20] T2 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 36383479; 060179F-050489_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383479?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 8 of 20] T2 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 36383387; 060179F-050489_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383387?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 19 of 20] T2 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 36381835; 060179F-050489_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381835?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 18 of 20] T2 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 36381440; 060179F-050489_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381440?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 17 of 20] T2 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 36381377; 060179F-050489_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381377?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 20 of 20] T2 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 36381310; 060179F-050489_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381310?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 15 of 20] T2 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 36381229; 060179F-050489_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381229?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 13 of 20] T2 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 36380506; 060179F-050489_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380506?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 10 of 20] T2 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 36379802; 060179F-050489_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379802?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 16 of 20] T2 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 36379787; 060179F-050489_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379787?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 1 of 20] T2 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 36379778; 060179F-050489_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379778?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 9 of 20] T2 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 36379738; 060179F-050489_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379738?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 7 of 20] T2 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 36379247; 060179F-050489_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379247?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 5 of 20] T2 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 36379182; 060179F-050489_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379182?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 4 of 20] T2 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 36379054; 060179F-050489_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379054?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 2 of 20] T2 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 36378966; 060179F-050489_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378966?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 12 of 20] T2 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 36371461; 060179F-050489_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371461?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 6 of 20] T2 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 36371395; 060179F-050489_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371395?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 14 of 20] T2 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 36368612; 060179F-050489_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. [Part 3 of 20] T2 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 36368130; 060179F-050489_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368130?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION OF FLAMING GORGE DAM, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT,UTAH AND WYOMING. AN - 16339980; 11804 AB - PURPOSE: Alteration of the operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir on the Green River in the Ashley National Forest of Utah and Wyoming is proposed to achieve the flow and temperature regimes recommended in a September 2000 report by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. The dam and reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River upstream of its confluence with the Colorado River. The dam also delivers hydroelectric power to the regional electrical grid. The storage capacity and the ability to control water releases from the dam allow federal authorities flexibility in providing flow and temperature management and to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat. The September 2000 report specifically describes peak flows, durations, water temperatures, and base flow criteria recommended to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish species in the Green River. The recovery effort proposed in this final EIS addresses four endangered species of fish, namely, humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and bonytail. Under its original operating criteria, the dam jeopardized the continued of the species of concern. Under the proposed action, releases from the dam would be patterned so that peak flows, durations, and base flows and temperatures, described in the September 200 flow and temperature recommendations for reaches 1, 2, and 3 downstream of the reservoir would be achieved. Reach 1 begins at the dam and extends to the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers in Colorado. Reach 2 begins at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers and extends 99 miles southwest to the White River confluence near Ouray, Utah. Reach 3 begins at the confluence of the Green and White rivers and extends 246 miles south to the confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers in Canyonlands National Park. In addition to the proposed action, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current operational regime at the dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The refined dam operation would offset the adverse impacts of flow depletions from the Green River for certain federal water projects in Utah. Modifying the operation of the dam would also serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for offsetting jeopardy to endangered fish species and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minimum flow requirements and maximum temperature levels would continue to be exceeded, though violations of these standards would decrease significantly in relation to current conditions. Sediment load within the basin downstream of the reservoir would increase somewhat. Hydroelectric generation from the dam would decline by 4.5 percent. Approximately 245 acres of cropland in the historic Green River floodplain could be affected by flooding in nearly half of the future operation years, but no substantial crop damage would be expected. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities could also suffer from flooding. A decline in the acreage and health of native riparian vegetation due to flooding would affect numerous plant and animal species, including federally protected species. Flooding would also provide a greater opportunity for mosquito breeding within the floodplain. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0216D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050489, 318 pages, November 14, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Insects KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16339980?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=OPERATION+OF+FLAMING+GORGE+DAM%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2CUTAH+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER COLUMBIA BASIN ALTERNATIVE FLOOD CONTROL AND FISH OPERATIONS AT LIBBY DAM AND HUNGRY HORSE DAM, LINCOLN AND FLATHEAD COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 36440093; 11788 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of benchmark flood control and fish operations at Libby Dam and Hungry Horse Dam in northwestern Montana is proposed. Such operations are under considering for the purpose of providing reservoir and flow conditions at and below these dames for the benefit of fish listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, consistent with authorized project purposes, including maintaining the current level of flood control benefits. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to flood control and related impacts, fisheries and other biological impacts and benefits, water and air quality, cultural resources, recreation resources, power generation, and economics. Alternatives have been outlined for the both dams, and the mainstream of the Columbia River. Preferred alternatives have been identified at each of the aforementioned project sites. The preferred alternative for the Libby Dam would provide for a variable discharge (VARQ) flood control operations with sturgeon, bull trout, and salmon flow augmentation. Sturgeon flow augmentation would provide tiered sturgeon volumes from the 2000 United States Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion using a maximum dam discharge rate up to the existing powerhouse capacity for 25,000 cubic feet per second. This plan has been the interim operation plan at the dam since 2003. The preferred alternative for Hungry Horse Dam would provide for VARQ flood control operations with bull trout and salmon augmentation flows. Once again, this is the current interim operating plan for this dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: While providing management regimes that benefit several species of endangered and threatened fish, the flow plans would improve water quality and fisheries and other biological components of the Columbia River basin ecosystem, provide protection to cultural resources and recreation resources, and continue to allow for full flood protection and power generation, thereby contributing to the local and regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Possibly flooding related to dam operations would continue, since the structures and reservoirs cannot prevent flooding under all circumstances; flooding would affect the Kootenai and Orielle river basins and the mainstream of the Columbia River. Heat storage would increase in reservoirs, and water quality would continue to be less than under a free-flowing river regime. Power generation could be reduced along the mainstream during winter. Bank erosion along the reservoir shorelines and river banks would continue, affecting terrestrial habitat and cultural resource sites. Agricultural drainage costs would increase along the Kootenai River, and groundwater seepage would result in further agricultural losses. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Flood Control Act of 1944, Flood Control Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-516), Hungry Horse Project (Act of 17 May 1950), and Public Law 78-329. JF - EPA number: 050473, 1,012 pages, November 7, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dams KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Turbines KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Columbia River KW - Montana KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Flood Control Act of 1944, Project Authorization KW - Flood Control Act of 1950, Project Authorization KW - Hungry Horse Project (Act of 17 May 1950), Project Authorization KW - Public Law 78-329, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36440093?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+COLUMBIA+BASIN+ALTERNATIVE+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+FISH+OPERATIONS+AT+LIBBY+DAM+AND+HUNGRY+HORSE+DAM%2C+LINCOLN+AND+FLATHEAD+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=UPPER+COLUMBIA+BASIN+ALTERNATIVE+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+FISH+OPERATIONS+AT+LIBBY+DAM+AND+HUNGRY+HORSE+DAM%2C+LINCOLN+AND+FLATHEAD+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 7, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER COLUMBIA BASIN ALTERNATIVE FLOOD CONTROL AND FISH OPERATIONS AT LIBBY DAM AND HUNGRY HORSE DAM, LINCOLN AND FLATHEAD COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - UPPER COLUMBIA BASIN ALTERNATIVE FLOOD CONTROL AND FISH OPERATIONS AT LIBBY DAM AND HUNGRY HORSE DAM, LINCOLN AND FLATHEAD COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 36380193; 060175D-050473_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of benchmark flood control and fish operations at Libby Dam and Hungry Horse Dam in northwestern Montana is proposed. Such operations are under considering for the purpose of providing reservoir and flow conditions at and below these dames for the benefit of fish listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, consistent with authorized project purposes, including maintaining the current level of flood control benefits. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to flood control and related impacts, fisheries and other biological impacts and benefits, water and air quality, cultural resources, recreation resources, power generation, and economics. Alternatives have been outlined for the both dams, and the mainstream of the Columbia River. Preferred alternatives have been identified at each of the aforementioned project sites. The preferred alternative for the Libby Dam would provide for a variable discharge (VARQ) flood control operations with sturgeon, bull trout, and salmon flow augmentation. Sturgeon flow augmentation would provide tiered sturgeon volumes from the 2000 United States Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion using a maximum dam discharge rate up to the existing powerhouse capacity for 25,000 cubic feet per second. This plan has been the interim operation plan at the dam since 2003. The preferred alternative for Hungry Horse Dam would provide for VARQ flood control operations with bull trout and salmon augmentation flows. Once again, this is the current interim operating plan for this dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: While providing management regimes that benefit several species of endangered and threatened fish, the flow plans would improve water quality and fisheries and other biological components of the Columbia River basin ecosystem, provide protection to cultural resources and recreation resources, and continue to allow for full flood protection and power generation, thereby contributing to the local and regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Possibly flooding related to dam operations would continue, since the structures and reservoirs cannot prevent flooding under all circumstances; flooding would affect the Kootenai and Orielle river basins and the mainstream of the Columbia River. Heat storage would increase in reservoirs, and water quality would continue to be less than under a free-flowing river regime. Power generation could be reduced along the mainstream during winter. Bank erosion along the reservoir shorelines and river banks would continue, affecting terrestrial habitat and cultural resource sites. Agricultural drainage costs would increase along the Kootenai River, and groundwater seepage would result in further agricultural losses. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Flood Control Act of 1944, Flood Control Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-516), Hungry Horse Project (Act of 17 May 1950), and Public Law 78-329. JF - EPA number: 050473, 1,012 pages, November 7, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dams KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Turbines KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Columbia River KW - Montana KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Flood Control Act of 1944, Project Authorization KW - Flood Control Act of 1950, Project Authorization KW - Hungry Horse Project (Act of 17 May 1950), Project Authorization KW - Public Law 78-329, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+COLUMBIA+BASIN+ALTERNATIVE+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+FISH+OPERATIONS+AT+LIBBY+DAM+AND+HUNGRY+HORSE+DAM%2C+LINCOLN+AND+FLATHEAD+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=UPPER+COLUMBIA+BASIN+ALTERNATIVE+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+FISH+OPERATIONS+AT+LIBBY+DAM+AND+HUNGRY+HORSE+DAM%2C+LINCOLN+AND+FLATHEAD+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 7, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER COLUMBIA BASIN ALTERNATIVE FLOOD CONTROL AND FISH OPERATIONS AT LIBBY DAM AND HUNGRY HORSE DAM, LINCOLN AND FLATHEAD COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - UPPER COLUMBIA BASIN ALTERNATIVE FLOOD CONTROL AND FISH OPERATIONS AT LIBBY DAM AND HUNGRY HORSE DAM, LINCOLN AND FLATHEAD COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 36372314; 060175D-050473_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of benchmark flood control and fish operations at Libby Dam and Hungry Horse Dam in northwestern Montana is proposed. Such operations are under considering for the purpose of providing reservoir and flow conditions at and below these dames for the benefit of fish listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, consistent with authorized project purposes, including maintaining the current level of flood control benefits. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to flood control and related impacts, fisheries and other biological impacts and benefits, water and air quality, cultural resources, recreation resources, power generation, and economics. Alternatives have been outlined for the both dams, and the mainstream of the Columbia River. Preferred alternatives have been identified at each of the aforementioned project sites. The preferred alternative for the Libby Dam would provide for a variable discharge (VARQ) flood control operations with sturgeon, bull trout, and salmon flow augmentation. Sturgeon flow augmentation would provide tiered sturgeon volumes from the 2000 United States Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion using a maximum dam discharge rate up to the existing powerhouse capacity for 25,000 cubic feet per second. This plan has been the interim operation plan at the dam since 2003. The preferred alternative for Hungry Horse Dam would provide for VARQ flood control operations with bull trout and salmon augmentation flows. Once again, this is the current interim operating plan for this dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: While providing management regimes that benefit several species of endangered and threatened fish, the flow plans would improve water quality and fisheries and other biological components of the Columbia River basin ecosystem, provide protection to cultural resources and recreation resources, and continue to allow for full flood protection and power generation, thereby contributing to the local and regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Possibly flooding related to dam operations would continue, since the structures and reservoirs cannot prevent flooding under all circumstances; flooding would affect the Kootenai and Orielle river basins and the mainstream of the Columbia River. Heat storage would increase in reservoirs, and water quality would continue to be less than under a free-flowing river regime. Power generation could be reduced along the mainstream during winter. Bank erosion along the reservoir shorelines and river banks would continue, affecting terrestrial habitat and cultural resource sites. Agricultural drainage costs would increase along the Kootenai River, and groundwater seepage would result in further agricultural losses. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Flood Control Act of 1944, Flood Control Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-516), Hungry Horse Project (Act of 17 May 1950), and Public Law 78-329. JF - EPA number: 050473, 1,012 pages, November 7, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dams KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Turbines KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Columbia River KW - Montana KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Flood Control Act of 1944, Project Authorization KW - Flood Control Act of 1950, Project Authorization KW - Hungry Horse Project (Act of 17 May 1950), Project Authorization KW - Public Law 78-329, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372314?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+COLUMBIA+BASIN+ALTERNATIVE+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+FISH+OPERATIONS+AT+LIBBY+DAM+AND+HUNGRY+HORSE+DAM%2C+LINCOLN+AND+FLATHEAD+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=UPPER+COLUMBIA+BASIN+ALTERNATIVE+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+FISH+OPERATIONS+AT+LIBBY+DAM+AND+HUNGRY+HORSE+DAM%2C+LINCOLN+AND+FLATHEAD+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 7, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER COLUMBIA BASIN ALTERNATIVE FLOOD CONTROL AND FISH OPERATIONS AT LIBBY DAM AND HUNGRY HORSE DAM, LINCOLN AND FLATHEAD COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - UPPER COLUMBIA BASIN ALTERNATIVE FLOOD CONTROL AND FISH OPERATIONS AT LIBBY DAM AND HUNGRY HORSE DAM, LINCOLN AND FLATHEAD COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 36367289; 060175D-050473_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of benchmark flood control and fish operations at Libby Dam and Hungry Horse Dam in northwestern Montana is proposed. Such operations are under considering for the purpose of providing reservoir and flow conditions at and below these dames for the benefit of fish listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, consistent with authorized project purposes, including maintaining the current level of flood control benefits. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to flood control and related impacts, fisheries and other biological impacts and benefits, water and air quality, cultural resources, recreation resources, power generation, and economics. Alternatives have been outlined for the both dams, and the mainstream of the Columbia River. Preferred alternatives have been identified at each of the aforementioned project sites. The preferred alternative for the Libby Dam would provide for a variable discharge (VARQ) flood control operations with sturgeon, bull trout, and salmon flow augmentation. Sturgeon flow augmentation would provide tiered sturgeon volumes from the 2000 United States Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion using a maximum dam discharge rate up to the existing powerhouse capacity for 25,000 cubic feet per second. This plan has been the interim operation plan at the dam since 2003. The preferred alternative for Hungry Horse Dam would provide for VARQ flood control operations with bull trout and salmon augmentation flows. Once again, this is the current interim operating plan for this dam. POSITIVE IMPACTS: While providing management regimes that benefit several species of endangered and threatened fish, the flow plans would improve water quality and fisheries and other biological components of the Columbia River basin ecosystem, provide protection to cultural resources and recreation resources, and continue to allow for full flood protection and power generation, thereby contributing to the local and regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Possibly flooding related to dam operations would continue, since the structures and reservoirs cannot prevent flooding under all circumstances; flooding would affect the Kootenai and Orielle river basins and the mainstream of the Columbia River. Heat storage would increase in reservoirs, and water quality would continue to be less than under a free-flowing river regime. Power generation could be reduced along the mainstream during winter. Bank erosion along the reservoir shorelines and river banks would continue, affecting terrestrial habitat and cultural resource sites. Agricultural drainage costs would increase along the Kootenai River, and groundwater seepage would result in further agricultural losses. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Flood Control Act of 1944, Flood Control Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-516), Hungry Horse Project (Act of 17 May 1950), and Public Law 78-329. JF - EPA number: 050473, 1,012 pages, November 7, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dams KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Turbines KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Columbia River KW - Montana KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Flood Control Act of 1944, Project Authorization KW - Flood Control Act of 1950, Project Authorization KW - Hungry Horse Project (Act of 17 May 1950), Project Authorization KW - Public Law 78-329, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367289?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+COLUMBIA+BASIN+ALTERNATIVE+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+FISH+OPERATIONS+AT+LIBBY+DAM+AND+HUNGRY+HORSE+DAM%2C+LINCOLN+AND+FLATHEAD+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=UPPER+COLUMBIA+BASIN+ALTERNATIVE+FLOOD+CONTROL+AND+FISH+OPERATIONS+AT+LIBBY+DAM+AND+HUNGRY+HORSE+DAM%2C+LINCOLN+AND+FLATHEAD+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 7, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Vegetation treatments on Bureau of Land Management lands in 17 western states; programmatic environmental report AN - 50426347; 2009-050237 JF - Vegetation treatments on Bureau of Land Management lands in 17 western states; programmatic environmental report Y1 - 2005/11// PY - 2005 DA - November 2005 SP - 135 KW - United States KW - soils KW - water quality KW - U. S. Bureau of Land Management KW - regional planning KW - impact statements KW - government agencies KW - pollution KW - vegetation KW - public lands KW - biota KW - air pollution KW - Western U.S. KW - soil pollution KW - risk assessment KW - ecology KW - water resources KW - water pollution KW - land use KW - public health KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50426347?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=2005-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Vegetation+treatments+on+Bureau+of+Land+Management+lands+in+17+western+states%3B+programmatic+environmental+report&rft.title=Vegetation+treatments+on+Bureau+of+Land+Management+lands+in+17+western+states%3B+programmatic+environmental+report&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2009-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 85 N1 - Availability - U. S. Bureau of Land Management, Reno, NV, United States N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 43 tables, sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - Includes appendices N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VEGETATION TREATMENTS USING HERBICIDES ON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS IN 17 WESTERN STATES: ALASKA, ARIZONA, COLORADO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, TEXAS, SOUTH DAKOTA, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING. AN - 36432406; 11732 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of vegetation treatments using herbicides on 262 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. This draft programmatic EIS considers the use of herbicide and non-herbicide plant control methods, including chemicals, prescribed fire, mechanical removal, and biological controls. The analysis also addresses the appropriate active herbicide ingredients. In addition to the herbicides currently approved for use, additional active ingredients are 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 EIS also contains 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 to approximately 6.0 million acres of public lands in 17 Western states, including Alaska. Five alternative approaches are considered. The No Action Alternative (Alternative A) would continue the existing management program. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) 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 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. JF - EPA number: 050459, Volume 1-507 pages, Volume 2--362 pages, Vegetation Treatments--555 pages, November 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-56 KW - Biocontrol KW - Burning (Prescribed) 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/36432406?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-01&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+COLORADO%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+OREGON%2C+TEXAS%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%2C+UTAH%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=VEGETATION+TREATMENTS+USING+HERBICIDES+ON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+LANDS+IN+17+WESTERN+STATES%3A+ALASKA%2C+ARIZONA%2C+COLORADO%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+OREGON%2C+TEXAS%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VEGETATION TREATMENTS USING HERBICIDES ON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS IN 17 WESTERN STATES: ALASKA, ARIZONA, COLORADO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, TEXAS, SOUTH DAKOTA, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - VEGETATION TREATMENTS USING HERBICIDES ON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS IN 17 WESTERN STATES: ALASKA, ARIZONA, COLORADO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, TEXAS, SOUTH DAKOTA, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING. AN - 36372498; 050071D-050459_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of vegetation treatments using herbicides on 262 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. This draft programmatic EIS considers the use of herbicide and non-herbicide plant control methods, including chemicals, prescribed fire, mechanical removal, and biological controls. The analysis also addresses the appropriate active herbicide ingredients. In addition to the herbicides currently approved for use, additional active ingredients are 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 EIS also contains 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 to approximately 6.0 million acres of public lands in 17 Western states, including Alaska. Five alternative approaches are considered. The No Action Alternative (Alternative A) would continue the existing management program. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) 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 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. JF - EPA number: 050459, Volume 1-507 pages, Volume 2--362 pages, Vegetation Treatments--555 pages, November 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-56 KW - Biocontrol KW - Burning (Prescribed) 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/36372498?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-01&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+COLORADO%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+OREGON%2C+TEXAS%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%2C+UTAH%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=VEGETATION+TREATMENTS+USING+HERBICIDES+ON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+LANDS+IN+17+WESTERN+STATES%3A+ALASKA%2C+ARIZONA%2C+COLORADO%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+OREGON%2C+TEXAS%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2005 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, COLORADO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, TEXAS, SOUTH DAKOTA, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - VEGETATION TREATMENTS USING HERBICIDES ON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS IN 17 WESTERN STATES: ALASKA, ARIZONA, COLORADO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, TEXAS, SOUTH DAKOTA, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING. AN - 36367401; 050071D-050459_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of vegetation treatments using herbicides on 262 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. This draft programmatic EIS considers the use of herbicide and non-herbicide plant control methods, including chemicals, prescribed fire, mechanical removal, and biological controls. The analysis also addresses the appropriate active herbicide ingredients. In addition to the herbicides currently approved for use, additional active ingredients are 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 EIS also contains 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 to approximately 6.0 million acres of public lands in 17 Western states, including Alaska. Five alternative approaches are considered. The No Action Alternative (Alternative A) would continue the existing management program. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) 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 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. JF - EPA number: 050459, Volume 1-507 pages, Volume 2--362 pages, Vegetation Treatments--555 pages, November 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-56 KW - Biocontrol KW - Burning (Prescribed) 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/36367401?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-01&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+COLORADO%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+OREGON%2C+TEXAS%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%2C+UTAH%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=VEGETATION+TREATMENTS+USING+HERBICIDES+ON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+LANDS+IN+17+WESTERN+STATES%3A+ALASKA%2C+ARIZONA%2C+COLORADO%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+OREGON%2C+TEXAS%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2005 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, COLORADO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, TEXAS, SOUTH DAKOTA, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - VEGETATION TREATMENTS USING HERBICIDES ON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS IN 17 WESTERN STATES: ALASKA, ARIZONA, COLORADO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, TEXAS, SOUTH DAKOTA, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING. AN - 36364654; 050071D-050459_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of vegetation treatments using herbicides on 262 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. This draft programmatic EIS considers the use of herbicide and non-herbicide plant control methods, including chemicals, prescribed fire, mechanical removal, and biological controls. The analysis also addresses the appropriate active herbicide ingredients. In addition to the herbicides currently approved for use, additional active ingredients are 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 EIS also contains 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 to approximately 6.0 million acres of public lands in 17 Western states, including Alaska. Five alternative approaches are considered. The No Action Alternative (Alternative A) would continue the existing management program. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) 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 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. JF - EPA number: 050459, Volume 1-507 pages, Volume 2--362 pages, Vegetation Treatments--555 pages, November 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-56 KW - Biocontrol KW - Burning (Prescribed) 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/36364654?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-11-01&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+COLORADO%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+OREGON%2C+TEXAS%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%2C+UTAH%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=VEGETATION+TREATMENTS+USING+HERBICIDES+ON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+LANDS+IN+17+WESTERN+STATES%3A+ALASKA%2C+ARIZONA%2C+COLORADO%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+OKLAHOMA%2C+OREGON%2C+TEXAS%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH VALLEYS RIGHTS-OF-WAY PROJECTS, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 16352469; 11784 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way for the installation of water pipelines across public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Washoe County, Nevada is proposed. Rights-of-way applications for the water transmission pipelines were submitted by Fish Spring Ranch, LLC and Intermountain Water Supply Ltd. Each applicant is proposing to construct and operate water supply and transmission projects to meet present and future water demands of the Stead/Silver Lake/Lemon Valley areas, collectively known as North Valleys. The project area is generally located approximately 15 to 35 miles north of Reno The projects would involve installation and operation of wellheads, electrical distribution lines, water pipelines, pumping stations, surge tanks, and a terminal water storage tank. In addition, the Fish Springs Ranch would construction an electrical substation on private land adjacent to the Alturas 345-kilovolt transmission line in Honey Lake Valley. Intermountain Water Supply's proposal would include installation of wells and construction of a pump station and storage tanks on public land. The Fish Springs Ranch system would convey u to 8,000 are-feet per year from six wells on Fish Springs Ranch property. The pipeline would extend 28 miles from the pump station to the terminal tank site between Lemmon Valley and Antelope Valley. The Intermountain Water Supply project would convey up to 3,500 acre-feet per year from two wells located in Dry Valley and one in Bedell Flat, and antelope Valley and proceed south 24 miles to a terminus near Stead. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to surface and groundwater resource impacts from the pumping of groundwater, the impacts of groundwater extraction on vegetation and wildlife habitat, and cumulative impacts of water importation on regional development. In addition to the applicants' proposals, a No Action Alternative and one action alternative are addressed in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would allow for construction of both pipelines within a common rights-of-way POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new source of water supply would support current and planned development, including residential and industrial development, in the North Valleys planning area. The availability of water in this area is called for in the Washoe County and Reno master plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic activity could rupture pipelines or damage related facilities. Removal of groundwater from Honey Lake Valley and Dry Valley and Bedell Flat could result in groundwater table and stream flow dropdowns and alter salinity levels in both water source types. Distribution and use of water from pumping wells could increase, and groundwater recharge from septic systems and nitrate loading in groundwater would increase. Additional development allowed by the availability of water would result in further destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat as well as disturbance of soils and the resultant erosion and sedimentation of surface water flows. Sagebrush, grassland, and juniper woodland communities would be affected during construction and due to removal of groundwater. The projects would result in 620 acres of surface disturbance, of which 358 would occur on public lands. Two properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places lie within the rights-of-way, and nine other eligible properties lie within the area of potential effect. Six cultural sites located within the area of potential effect may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register. 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 05-0686D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050463, 459 pages and maps, October 3, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-36 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Power KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Nevada 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/16352469?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-10-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+VALLEYS+RIGHTS-OF-WAY+PROJECTS%2C+WASHOE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=NORTH+VALLEYS+RIGHTS-OF-WAY+PROJECTS%2C+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, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, SAN LUIS LONG-TERM CONTRACT RENEWAL, FRESNO, KINGS, AND MERCED COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36439381; 11760 AB - PURPOSE: Renewal of the Central Valley Project San Luis Unit long-term water service contracts applicable in Fresno, Kings, and Merced counties, California is proposed. The Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, which included Title XXXIV, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). The CVPIA amended the previous authorizations of the CVP to achieve a reasonable balance among competing demands for use of CVP water, including the requirements of fish and wildlife and agricultural, municipal and industrial (M&I), and power contractors. Through the CVPIA, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is developing policies and programs to improve the environmental conditions that were affected by the operation and maintenance and 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 (Bay-Delta). Section 3404(c) of the CVPIA directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to renew existing CVP water service and repayment contracts following completion of a Programmatic EIS (PEIS) and other needed environmental documentation. Section 3404(c) of the CVPIA states that 25 years will be the upper limit for long-term irrigation repayment and water service contracts within the CVP. However, Section 3404(c) did not amend the provisions of Section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 and the Reclamation Project Act of June 21,1963, which authorized renewal of M&I water contract terms for up to 40 years. These authorizations remain in place as guidance for establishing the terms of M&I contracts. Therefore, under the federal action, the term for agricultural (irrigation) water service contracts will be 25 years, the term for mixed agricultural/M&I water service contracts will be 25 years, and the term for M&I-only long-term water service contracts will be 40 years. Section 3409 of the CVPIA required the Secretary to prepare a PEIS to evaluate the direct and indirect adverse impacts and benefits of implementing the CVPIA. The PEIS was prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Reclamation released a Draft PEIS on November 7, 1997. Decision in January 2001. The current proposal would establish the terms and conditions of long-term contracts and tiered water pricing. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would renew existing water service contracts consistent with the PEIS, are considered in this draft EIS. In 1999, the federal authorities published a proposed long-term water service contract, to which the CVP contractors responded via an alternative long-term solution, published in 2000. Negotiations of CVP-wide terms and conditions has resulted in final versions of all such contracts, which are identified collectively as the preferred alternative in this EIS. This alternative us based on the final or near-final versions of contracts that have been negotiated between the federal government and each of the San Luis Unit contractors. The nine contracts analyzed were negotiated with the California Department of Fish and Game; the cities of Avenal, Huron, and Coalinga; and the Pacheco, Panoche, San Luis, and Westlands water districts. Two other action alternatives are addressed in this EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new contract regime would continue to provide for beneficial water use in the San Luis Unit, incorporate certain administrative conditions into the renewed contracts to ensure CVP continued compliance with current federal law and statutes, allow the continued reimbursements to the federal government for costs related to CVP construction and operation, and satisfy the statuary requirements for renewal of the existing San Luis Unit water services contracts. None of the alternatives under consideration would involve construction of facilities or changes in CVP water service contract service areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The major difference distinguishing alternatives would result from the various tiered water assumptions and the responses to the pricing method. The tiered water pricing assumptions would be identical under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. Alternative 2 and the preferred alternative would increase CVP water rates as compared to the other alternatives. If tiered pricing made CVP water unaffordable to some of the existing users, those users may increase groundwater use to replace more expensive CVP water. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Reclamation Project Act of 1939, Reclamation Project Act of 1963, and Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). JF - EPA number: 050411, 480 pages, September 27, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 05-55 KW - Agriculture KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Project Act of 1939, Compliance KW - Reclamation Project Act of 1963, 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/36439381?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+LUIS+LONG-TERM+CONTRACT+RENEWAL%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+AND+MERCED+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+LUIS+LONG-TERM+CONTRACT+RENEWAL%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%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 Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, SAN LUIS LONG-TERM CONTRACT RENEWAL, FRESNO, KINGS, AND MERCED COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, SAN LUIS LONG-TERM CONTRACT RENEWAL, FRESNO, KINGS, AND MERCED COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36367751; 050013D-050411_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Renewal of the Central Valley Project San Luis Unit long-term water service contracts applicable in Fresno, Kings, and Merced counties, California is proposed. The Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, which included Title XXXIV, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). The CVPIA amended the previous authorizations of the CVP to achieve a reasonable balance among competing demands for use of CVP water, including the requirements of fish and wildlife and agricultural, municipal and industrial (M&I), and power contractors. Through the CVPIA, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is developing policies and programs to improve the environmental conditions that were affected by the operation and maintenance and 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 (Bay-Delta). Section 3404(c) of the CVPIA directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to renew existing CVP water service and repayment contracts following completion of a Programmatic EIS (PEIS) and other needed environmental documentation. Section 3404(c) of the CVPIA states that 25 years will be the upper limit for long-term irrigation repayment and water service contracts within the CVP. However, Section 3404(c) did not amend the provisions of Section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 and the Reclamation Project Act of June 21,1963, which authorized renewal of M&I water contract terms for up to 40 years. These authorizations remain in place as guidance for establishing the terms of M&I contracts. Therefore, under the federal action, the term for agricultural (irrigation) water service contracts will be 25 years, the term for mixed agricultural/M&I water service contracts will be 25 years, and the term for M&I-only long-term water service contracts will be 40 years. Section 3409 of the CVPIA required the Secretary to prepare a PEIS to evaluate the direct and indirect adverse impacts and benefits of implementing the CVPIA. The PEIS was prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Reclamation released a Draft PEIS on November 7, 1997. Decision in January 2001. The current proposal would establish the terms and conditions of long-term contracts and tiered water pricing. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would renew existing water service contracts consistent with the PEIS, are considered in this draft EIS. In 1999, the federal authorities published a proposed long-term water service contract, to which the CVP contractors responded via an alternative long-term solution, published in 2000. Negotiations of CVP-wide terms and conditions has resulted in final versions of all such contracts, which are identified collectively as the preferred alternative in this EIS. This alternative us based on the final or near-final versions of contracts that have been negotiated between the federal government and each of the San Luis Unit contractors. The nine contracts analyzed were negotiated with the California Department of Fish and Game; the cities of Avenal, Huron, and Coalinga; and the Pacheco, Panoche, San Luis, and Westlands water districts. Two other action alternatives are addressed in this EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new contract regime would continue to provide for beneficial water use in the San Luis Unit, incorporate certain administrative conditions into the renewed contracts to ensure CVP continued compliance with current federal law and statutes, allow the continued reimbursements to the federal government for costs related to CVP construction and operation, and satisfy the statuary requirements for renewal of the existing San Luis Unit water services contracts. None of the alternatives under consideration would involve construction of facilities or changes in CVP water service contract service areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The major difference distinguishing alternatives would result from the various tiered water assumptions and the responses to the pricing method. The tiered water pricing assumptions would be identical under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. Alternative 2 and the preferred alternative would increase CVP water rates as compared to the other alternatives. If tiered pricing made CVP water unaffordable to some of the existing users, those users may increase groundwater use to replace more expensive CVP water. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Reclamation Project Act of 1939, Reclamation Project Act of 1963, and Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). JF - EPA number: 050411, 480 pages, September 27, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 05-55 KW - Agriculture KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Project Act of 1939, Compliance KW - Reclamation Project Act of 1963, 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/36367751?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+LUIS+LONG-TERM+CONTRACT+RENEWAL%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%2C+AND+MERCED+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+LUIS+LONG-TERM+CONTRACT+RENEWAL%2C+FRESNO%2C+KINGS%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 Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RING OF FIRE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - RING OF FIRE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 36382304; 050045D-050399_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the 1.3 million acres of public lands in the Ring of Fire Management Area of Kodiak Island and the Aleutian Islands, Alaska is proposed. The planning area spans a distance roughly equal to the distance from Boston to Seattle. Most of the federally administered public lands within the area are scattered and fragmented due to land ownership patterns. The exterior boundaries of the area encompass 61.4 million acres. The larger contiguous blocks are located near the community of Haines in northeastern Alaska, along the Knik River north of Anchorage, and within the Neacola Mountains in western Cook Inlet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to off-highway vehicle use, recreation, lands and realty actions, and management of leasable, locatable, and salable minerals. 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 D) would designate the majority of unselected lands and those selected lands whose selection would be relinquished or rejected as open to oil an gas leasing and development and mineral exploration. These lands would be affected by stipulations closing out exploitative use on certain selected areas characterized by unique or sensitive resources. One area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) and two special resource management areas would be established and protected under specifically developed plans designed to enhance the value of these areas. No wild and scenic river designations would be recommended. Two small parcels would be manages to protect special visual aesthetics, and the ACEC would be managed for visual as well as other values. All lands within the planning area would be designated for limited use by off-highway vehicle use, prohibiting such vehicles from leaving designated roads or trails to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources, and/or recreational experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for a balance between resource development and resource conservation, while still allowing for multiple use activities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative D would remove fewer areas from potential mineral development than in Alternative C, however, there would be more areas removed that under Alternative B. Failure to recommend designation of any wild and scenic rivers would expose rivers having this potential to exploitative development and, thereby, potentially remove them from the protection afforded by eligibility. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050399, Draft EIS-582 pages, Appendices--483 pages, September 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-05/019+1610+040 KW - Exploration KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Aleutian Islands KW - Kodiak Island KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382304?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RING+OF+FIRE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=RING+OF+FIRE+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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RING OF FIRE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - RING OF FIRE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 36380048; 050045D-050399_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the 1.3 million acres of public lands in the Ring of Fire Management Area of Kodiak Island and the Aleutian Islands, Alaska is proposed. The planning area spans a distance roughly equal to the distance from Boston to Seattle. Most of the federally administered public lands within the area are scattered and fragmented due to land ownership patterns. The exterior boundaries of the area encompass 61.4 million acres. The larger contiguous blocks are located near the community of Haines in northeastern Alaska, along the Knik River north of Anchorage, and within the Neacola Mountains in western Cook Inlet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to off-highway vehicle use, recreation, lands and realty actions, and management of leasable, locatable, and salable minerals. 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 D) would designate the majority of unselected lands and those selected lands whose selection would be relinquished or rejected as open to oil an gas leasing and development and mineral exploration. These lands would be affected by stipulations closing out exploitative use on certain selected areas characterized by unique or sensitive resources. One area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) and two special resource management areas would be established and protected under specifically developed plans designed to enhance the value of these areas. No wild and scenic river designations would be recommended. Two small parcels would be manages to protect special visual aesthetics, and the ACEC would be managed for visual as well as other values. All lands within the planning area would be designated for limited use by off-highway vehicle use, prohibiting such vehicles from leaving designated roads or trails to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources, and/or recreational experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for a balance between resource development and resource conservation, while still allowing for multiple use activities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative D would remove fewer areas from potential mineral development than in Alternative C, however, there would be more areas removed that under Alternative B. Failure to recommend designation of any wild and scenic rivers would expose rivers having this potential to exploitative development and, thereby, potentially remove them from the protection afforded by eligibility. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050399, Draft EIS-582 pages, Appendices--483 pages, September 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-05/019+1610+040 KW - Exploration KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Aleutian Islands KW - Kodiak Island KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RING+OF+FIRE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=RING+OF+FIRE+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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RING OF FIRE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 16344794; 11755 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the 1.3 million acres of public lands in the Ring of Fire Management Area of Kodiak Island and the Aleutian Islands, Alaska is proposed. The planning area spans a distance roughly equal to the distance from Boston to Seattle. Most of the federally administered public lands within the area are scattered and fragmented due to land ownership patterns. The exterior boundaries of the area encompass 61.4 million acres. The larger contiguous blocks are located near the community of Haines in northeastern Alaska, along the Knik River north of Anchorage, and within the Neacola Mountains in western Cook Inlet. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to off-highway vehicle use, recreation, lands and realty actions, and management of leasable, locatable, and salable minerals. 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 D) would designate the majority of unselected lands and those selected lands whose selection would be relinquished or rejected as open to oil an gas leasing and development and mineral exploration. These lands would be affected by stipulations closing out exploitative use on certain selected areas characterized by unique or sensitive resources. One area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) and two special resource management areas would be established and protected under specifically developed plans designed to enhance the value of these areas. No wild and scenic river designations would be recommended. Two small parcels would be manages to protect special visual aesthetics, and the ACEC would be managed for visual as well as other values. All lands within the planning area would be designated for limited use by off-highway vehicle use, prohibiting such vehicles from leaving designated roads or trails to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources, and/or recreational experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for a balance between resource development and resource conservation, while still allowing for multiple use activities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative D would remove fewer areas from potential mineral development than in Alternative C, however, there would be more areas removed that under Alternative B. Failure to recommend designation of any wild and scenic rivers would expose rivers having this potential to exploitative development and, thereby, potentially remove them from the protection afforded by eligibility. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050399, Draft EIS-582 pages, Appendices--483 pages, September 23, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-05/019+1610+040 KW - Exploration KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Aleutian Islands KW - Kodiak Island KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16344794?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RING+OF+FIRE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=RING+OF+FIRE+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING, LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST, KERN, LOS ANGELES, MONTEREY, SANTA BARBARA, AND SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING, LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST, KERN, LOS ANGELES, MONTEREY, SANTA BARBARA, AND SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36379350; 050011F-050381_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a leasing scenario for the management of federal oil and gas estate on lands administered by Los Padres National Forest in Kern, Los Angeles, Monterey, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties, California is proposed. The 1.97-million-acre analysis area lies entirely within the national forest, located along the central California coast and extending approximately 220 miles from the Point Sur area at its northwest corner to Lake Piru at its southeast end. Areas with a high potential for the occurrence of oil and gas have been identified. The level of activity, including development of wells, roads, pipelines, and power lines, and the resulting acreage of disturbance that can reasonably be expected to occur have been estimated for these areas. Withdrawn areas include 51,980 acres of coastal zone, 162,412 acres within the Santa Ynez Watershed, and 819,284 acres within wilderness areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to air quality, watersheds, wetlands, riparian areas, floodplains, wildlife habitat, fisheries, vegetation, heritage resources, socioeconomics, other social impacts, access and traffic, land and resource management plans, oil and gas development, scenic resources, safety, and recreational resources. Eight alternative leasing scenarios, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize oil and gas development. Alternative 3 would alter the planned development under Alternative 2 such that oil and gas leasing would meet forest plan direction. Alternative 4 would add further stipulations, over and above those of Alternative 3, to emphasize rehabilitation and enhancement of the surface resources and mitigation or avoidance or all identified potentially significant impacts. Alternative 4a would include all stipulations provided under Alternative 4 and prohibit surface occupancy in all inventoried roadless areas. Alternative 5, combining stipulations under alternatives 3 and 4, would prohibit leasing in areas designated for no surface occupancy. Alternative 5a would expand surface occupancy restrictions under Alternative 5 to all inventoried roadless areas. The preferred alternative, which is newly proposed in this final EIS, would provide for a combination of alternatives 1 and 5a. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas produced based on the leasing activities would assist the nation in meeting its domestic consumption needs for these energy resources, reducing dependence on foreign sources of energy supply. Lease development would provide a significant boost to employment rolls and otherwise contribute to local economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Regardless of the alternative chosen, the plan would result in short- or long-term emissions of three criteria pollutants and long-term emissions of ozone. Peregrine falcon, a federally protected species could be affected by development activities. Encroachments on private property and increased noise levels could affect populations in the area. Traffic volumes could increase in some areas. Under certain alternatives, scenic and other recreational resources would be significantly impacted. Oil and gas developments would involve the possibility of spills, fires, and geologic disturbances. 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 (36 CFR 228, 1990), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21(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 02-0116D, Volume 26, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050381, Final EIS--559 pages; Appendices--280 pages, September 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Coastal Zones KW - Earthquakes KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - California KW - Los Padres 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 - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379350?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING%2C+LOS+PADRES+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+MONTEREY%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+AND+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING%2C+LOS+PADRES+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+MONTEREY%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+AND+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Goleta, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING, LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST, KERN, LOS ANGELES, MONTEREY, SANTA BARBARA, AND SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING, LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST, KERN, LOS ANGELES, MONTEREY, SANTA BARBARA, AND SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36379146; 050011F-050381_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a leasing scenario for the management of federal oil and gas estate on lands administered by Los Padres National Forest in Kern, Los Angeles, Monterey, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties, California is proposed. The 1.97-million-acre analysis area lies entirely within the national forest, located along the central California coast and extending approximately 220 miles from the Point Sur area at its northwest corner to Lake Piru at its southeast end. Areas with a high potential for the occurrence of oil and gas have been identified. The level of activity, including development of wells, roads, pipelines, and power lines, and the resulting acreage of disturbance that can reasonably be expected to occur have been estimated for these areas. Withdrawn areas include 51,980 acres of coastal zone, 162,412 acres within the Santa Ynez Watershed, and 819,284 acres within wilderness areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to air quality, watersheds, wetlands, riparian areas, floodplains, wildlife habitat, fisheries, vegetation, heritage resources, socioeconomics, other social impacts, access and traffic, land and resource management plans, oil and gas development, scenic resources, safety, and recreational resources. Eight alternative leasing scenarios, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize oil and gas development. Alternative 3 would alter the planned development under Alternative 2 such that oil and gas leasing would meet forest plan direction. Alternative 4 would add further stipulations, over and above those of Alternative 3, to emphasize rehabilitation and enhancement of the surface resources and mitigation or avoidance or all identified potentially significant impacts. Alternative 4a would include all stipulations provided under Alternative 4 and prohibit surface occupancy in all inventoried roadless areas. Alternative 5, combining stipulations under alternatives 3 and 4, would prohibit leasing in areas designated for no surface occupancy. Alternative 5a would expand surface occupancy restrictions under Alternative 5 to all inventoried roadless areas. The preferred alternative, which is newly proposed in this final EIS, would provide for a combination of alternatives 1 and 5a. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas produced based on the leasing activities would assist the nation in meeting its domestic consumption needs for these energy resources, reducing dependence on foreign sources of energy supply. Lease development would provide a significant boost to employment rolls and otherwise contribute to local economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Regardless of the alternative chosen, the plan would result in short- or long-term emissions of three criteria pollutants and long-term emissions of ozone. Peregrine falcon, a federally protected species could be affected by development activities. Encroachments on private property and increased noise levels could affect populations in the area. Traffic volumes could increase in some areas. Under certain alternatives, scenic and other recreational resources would be significantly impacted. Oil and gas developments would involve the possibility of spills, fires, and geologic disturbances. 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 (36 CFR 228, 1990), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21(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 02-0116D, Volume 26, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050381, Final EIS--559 pages; Appendices--280 pages, September 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Coastal Zones KW - Earthquakes KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - California KW - Los Padres 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 - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379146?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING%2C+LOS+PADRES+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+MONTEREY%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+AND+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING%2C+LOS+PADRES+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+MONTEREY%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+AND+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Goleta, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING, LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST, KERN, LOS ANGELES, MONTEREY, SANTA BARBARA, AND SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16343781; 11761 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a leasing scenario for the management of federal oil and gas estate on lands administered by Los Padres National Forest in Kern, Los Angeles, Monterey, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties, California is proposed. The 1.97-million-acre analysis area lies entirely within the national forest, located along the central California coast and extending approximately 220 miles from the Point Sur area at its northwest corner to Lake Piru at its southeast end. Areas with a high potential for the occurrence of oil and gas have been identified. The level of activity, including development of wells, roads, pipelines, and power lines, and the resulting acreage of disturbance that can reasonably be expected to occur have been estimated for these areas. Withdrawn areas include 51,980 acres of coastal zone, 162,412 acres within the Santa Ynez Watershed, and 819,284 acres within wilderness areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to air quality, watersheds, wetlands, riparian areas, floodplains, wildlife habitat, fisheries, vegetation, heritage resources, socioeconomics, other social impacts, access and traffic, land and resource management plans, oil and gas development, scenic resources, safety, and recreational resources. Eight alternative leasing scenarios, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize oil and gas development. Alternative 3 would alter the planned development under Alternative 2 such that oil and gas leasing would meet forest plan direction. Alternative 4 would add further stipulations, over and above those of Alternative 3, to emphasize rehabilitation and enhancement of the surface resources and mitigation or avoidance or all identified potentially significant impacts. Alternative 4a would include all stipulations provided under Alternative 4 and prohibit surface occupancy in all inventoried roadless areas. Alternative 5, combining stipulations under alternatives 3 and 4, would prohibit leasing in areas designated for no surface occupancy. Alternative 5a would expand surface occupancy restrictions under Alternative 5 to all inventoried roadless areas. The preferred alternative, which is newly proposed in this final EIS, would provide for a combination of alternatives 1 and 5a. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas produced based on the leasing activities would assist the nation in meeting its domestic consumption needs for these energy resources, reducing dependence on foreign sources of energy supply. Lease development would provide a significant boost to employment rolls and otherwise contribute to local economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Regardless of the alternative chosen, the plan would result in short- or long-term emissions of three criteria pollutants and long-term emissions of ozone. Peregrine falcon, a federally protected species could be affected by development activities. Encroachments on private property and increased noise levels could affect populations in the area. Traffic volumes could increase in some areas. Under certain alternatives, scenic and other recreational resources would be significantly impacted. Oil and gas developments would involve the possibility of spills, fires, and geologic disturbances. 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 (36 CFR 228, 1990), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21(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 02-0116D, Volume 26, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050381, Final EIS--559 pages; Appendices--280 pages, September 14, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Coastal Zones KW - Earthquakes KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - California KW - Los Padres 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 - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16343781?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING%2C+LOS+PADRES+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+MONTEREY%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+AND+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING%2C+LOS+PADRES+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+MONTEREY%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+AND+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Goleta, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARLSBAD PROJECT WATER OPERATIONS AND WATER SUPPLY CONSERVATION, NEW MEXICO. AN - 36438623; 11639 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 adaptive management plan. Since changes in the project operations to 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 draft EIS, such as environmental assessments and categorical exclusion. 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 Carldbad 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. JF - EPA number: 050368, Draft EIS--CD-ROM; Appendices--768 pages and maps, September 1, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 05-40 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/36438623?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-01&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, TUCSON, ARIZONA. AN - 36437260; 11708 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised fire management plan for the Saguaro National Park, Tucson, Arizona is proposed. The park encompasses 91,327 acres within its two management units. The 24,034 Tucson Mountain Unit lies west of the Tucson metropolitan area, while the 67,293-acre Rincon Mountain District lies on the east side of Tucson. The existing program has been locally effective, but has not been able to keep more of the park from needing restoration. Wild land fire occurred naturally throughout the higher elections of the park and provided an ioprtant ecosystem process that kept forest fuels and community structure within their natural range of variability. Past fire suppression activities have lead to increases in fuel loads and changes in plant community structure, and to the increasing potential for catastrophic wildland fire. The risk of catastrophic fire is greatest in the areas where fire has been excluded and fuels and built up to hazardous levels. As a result, the incidence of catastrophic fire has increased in recent decades. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternative D would result in the implementation of a fire management plan that utilized prescribed fire and non-fire treatments in the Fire Management Unit (FMU) 1, which encompasses lands above the 4,000 elevation and total suppression in the FMU 2, which covers lands below the 4,000 elevation; no wildland fire would be allowed to burn to obtain resource benefits in either FMU. Action Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would result in the implementation of a fire management plan that utilized wildland fire for resource benefit as well as prescribed and non-fire treatments and fire suppression to accomplish objectives in the FMU 1, while using fire suppression as the chief methods in FMU 2. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred fire management treatments would be guided by restoration and maintenance target conditions, based on the natural range of variability for the park plant communities. By reducing unnatural levels of fuel, the plan would return the forest to a composition and restore a fire regime that is historically authentic and ecologically appropriate. A fire-adaptive vegetation complex would emerge. Moreover, the vast array of recreational trails and historic and archaeological sites that are contained in the park would be protected against wildland fire, as would visitors to the park and residents and businesses owning private lands adjacent to the park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term impacts of wildland fires and prescribed burns would include destruction of non-target vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and disturbance of soils and the resulting increased erosion and sediment yield, affecting water quality regionally. In addition, prescribed fires would degrade local air quality locally and wildland fires would have both local and regional air quality impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050407, 227 pages, September 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Desert Land KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Saguaro National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36437260?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAGUARO+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+TUCSON%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SAGUARO+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+TUCSON%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, TUCSON, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, TUCSON, ARIZONA. AN - 36379912; 050051D-050407_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised fire management plan for the Saguaro National Park, Tucson, Arizona is proposed. The park encompasses 91,327 acres within its two management units. The 24,034 Tucson Mountain Unit lies west of the Tucson metropolitan area, while the 67,293-acre Rincon Mountain District lies on the east side of Tucson. The existing program has been locally effective, but has not been able to keep more of the park from needing restoration. Wild land fire occurred naturally throughout the higher elections of the park and provided an ioprtant ecosystem process that kept forest fuels and community structure within their natural range of variability. Past fire suppression activities have lead to increases in fuel loads and changes in plant community structure, and to the increasing potential for catastrophic wildland fire. The risk of catastrophic fire is greatest in the areas where fire has been excluded and fuels and built up to hazardous levels. As a result, the incidence of catastrophic fire has increased in recent decades. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternative D would result in the implementation of a fire management plan that utilized prescribed fire and non-fire treatments in the Fire Management Unit (FMU) 1, which encompasses lands above the 4,000 elevation and total suppression in the FMU 2, which covers lands below the 4,000 elevation; no wildland fire would be allowed to burn to obtain resource benefits in either FMU. Action Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, would result in the implementation of a fire management plan that utilized wildland fire for resource benefit as well as prescribed and non-fire treatments and fire suppression to accomplish objectives in the FMU 1, while using fire suppression as the chief methods in FMU 2. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred fire management treatments would be guided by restoration and maintenance target conditions, based on the natural range of variability for the park plant communities. By reducing unnatural levels of fuel, the plan would return the forest to a composition and restore a fire regime that is historically authentic and ecologically appropriate. A fire-adaptive vegetation complex would emerge. Moreover, the vast array of recreational trails and historic and archaeological sites that are contained in the park would be protected against wildland fire, as would visitors to the park and residents and businesses owning private lands adjacent to the park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term impacts of wildland fires and prescribed burns would include destruction of non-target vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and disturbance of soils and the resulting increased erosion and sediment yield, affecting water quality regionally. In addition, prescribed fires would degrade local air quality locally and wildland fires would have both local and regional air quality impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050407, 227 pages, September 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Desert Land KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Saguaro National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379912?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAGUARO+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+TUCSON%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SAGUARO+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+TUCSON%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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARLSBAD PROJECT WATER OPERATIONS AND WATER SUPPLY CONSERVATION, NEW MEXICO. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - CARLSBAD PROJECT WATER OPERATIONS AND WATER SUPPLY CONSERVATION, NEW MEXICO. AN - 36372422; 050705D-050368_0002 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 adaptive management plan. Since changes in the project operations to 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 draft EIS, such as environmental assessments and categorical exclusion. 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 Carldbad 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. JF - EPA number: 050368, Draft EIS--CD-ROM; Appendices--768 pages and maps, September 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 05-40 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/36372422?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-01&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARLSBAD PROJECT WATER OPERATIONS AND WATER SUPPLY CONSERVATION, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - CARLSBAD PROJECT WATER OPERATIONS AND WATER SUPPLY CONSERVATION, NEW MEXICO. AN - 36367898; 050705D-050368_0001 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 adaptive management plan. Since changes in the project operations to 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 draft EIS, such as environmental assessments and categorical exclusion. 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 Carldbad 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. JF - EPA number: 050368, Draft EIS--CD-ROM; Appendices--768 pages and maps, September 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 05-40 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/36367898?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-01&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARLSBAD PROJECT WATER OPERATIONS AND WATER SUPPLY CONSERVATION, NEW MEXICO. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - CARLSBAD PROJECT WATER OPERATIONS AND WATER SUPPLY CONSERVATION, NEW MEXICO. AN - 36367673; 050705D-050368_0004 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 adaptive management plan. Since changes in the project operations to 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 draft EIS, such as environmental assessments and categorical exclusion. 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 Carldbad 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. JF - EPA number: 050368, Draft EIS--CD-ROM; Appendices--768 pages and maps, September 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 05-40 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/36367673?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-01&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARLSBAD PROJECT WATER OPERATIONS AND WATER SUPPLY CONSERVATION, NEW MEXICO. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - CARLSBAD PROJECT WATER OPERATIONS AND WATER SUPPLY CONSERVATION, NEW MEXICO. AN - 36367667; 050705D-050368_0007 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 adaptive management plan. Since changes in the project operations to 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 draft EIS, such as environmental assessments and categorical exclusion. 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 Carldbad 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. JF - EPA number: 050368, Draft EIS--CD-ROM; Appendices--768 pages and maps, September 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 05-40 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/36367667?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-01&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARLSBAD PROJECT WATER OPERATIONS AND WATER SUPPLY CONSERVATION, NEW MEXICO. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - CARLSBAD PROJECT WATER OPERATIONS AND WATER SUPPLY CONSERVATION, NEW MEXICO. AN - 36366945; 050705D-050368_0008 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 adaptive management plan. Since changes in the project operations to 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 draft EIS, such as environmental assessments and categorical exclusion. 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 Carldbad 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. JF - EPA number: 050368, Draft EIS--CD-ROM; Appendices--768 pages and maps, September 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 05-40 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/36366945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-01&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. HIGHWAY 160 FROM DURANGO TO BAYFIELD, LA PLATA COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - U.S. HIGHWAY 160 FROM DURANGO TO BAYFIELD, LA PLATA COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36363894; 050127D-050389_0001 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 Sate Highway 172/CR 284 as interchanges. This 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 draft 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). JF - EPA number: 050389, 497 pages, September, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-05-02-D KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements 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/36363894?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-01&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARLSBAD PROJECT WATER OPERATIONS AND WATER SUPPLY CONSERVATION, NEW MEXICO. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - CARLSBAD PROJECT WATER OPERATIONS AND WATER SUPPLY CONSERVATION, NEW MEXICO. AN - 36363805; 050705D-050368_0005 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 adaptive management plan. Since changes in the project operations to 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 draft EIS, such as environmental assessments and categorical exclusion. 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 Carldbad 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. JF - EPA number: 050368, Draft EIS--CD-ROM; Appendices--768 pages and maps, September 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 05-40 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/36363805?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-01&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. HIGHWAY 160 FROM DURANGO TO BAYFIELD, LA PLATA COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 16344754; 11748 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 Sate Highway 172/CR 284 as interchanges. This 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 draft 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). JF - EPA number: 050389, 497 pages, September, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-05-02-D KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements 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/16344754?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-09-01&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOW COUNTRY GULLAH CULTURE SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, NORTH CAROLINA, AND SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 36412423; 11634 AB - PURPOSE: A special resource study relative to the designation and protection of the Low Country Gullah Culture Special Resource Area by the National Park Service (NPS) is presented. The Gullah culture area, known as the Geechee culture in Georgia and Florida, is located along the southeastern coast of the United States in those two states as well as North Carolina and South Carolina. More specifically, the study area stretches along the coast roughly from the Cape Fear River near the North Carolina/South Carolina line to the St. John's River near the Georgia/Florida line. The area encompasses 12,315 square miles within coastal plain and 79 barriers islands and the associated water. The Gullah/Geechee people of today trace their ancestry to the enslaved Africans who inhabited the area. The history of the culture encompasses the rice plantation era forward to the present day. Special resource studies generally focus on one site or tract of land considered for protection. This study, however, focuses on the lifeways and traditions of a living culture in the Low Country and Sea Islands, a semi-tropical area that lies along coast. The influence of the ocean on the coastal plain extends approximately 30 miles inland with the flow of tidewater rivers. Most of the rice plantations that gave rise to the culture, and therefore the largest concentrations of the cultural type, were in the mainland tidal river areas. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative A would involve the establishment of three Gullah/Geechee Coastal Heritage Centers. Alternative B would involve development of interpretive programs and exhibits at existing NPS parks within the study area. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would establish a national heritage area to be administered by one or more local entities that would guide and oversee the goals and objectives of the heritage area. Alternative D would combine alternatives A and C. Development costs of alternatives A, B, C, and D are estimated at $12 million, $1.0 million, $1.0 to $10 million, and $2.0 to $11 million, respectively. {125-126} Respective annual operations and maintenance costs for the five are estimated at $1.0 million, $1.0 million, $300,000, $1.0 million, and $2.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Management of the area by the NPS as a special resource area would preserve values associated with the Gullah/Geechee culture, including values associated with individual and family history, cultural sites and artifacts, cultural pride, regional and local history, and the Gullah language. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the heritage centers under alternatives A and D and/or the interpretive facilities under other alternatives would result in some loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Interior Appropriation Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0190D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050363, 251 pages, CD-ROM, August 31, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Districts KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - National Parks KW - Florida KW - Georgia KW - North Carolina KW - South Carolina KW - Interior Appropriation Act of 200, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36412423?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOW+COUNTRY+GULLAH+CULTURE+SPECIAL+RESOURCE+STUDY%2C+FLORIDA%2C+GEORGIA%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA%2C+AND+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=LOW+COUNTRY+GULLAH+CULTURE+SPECIAL+RESOURCE+STUDY%2C+FLORIDA%2C+GEORGIA%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA%2C+AND+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 31, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREAT FALLS PARK, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36437705; 11629 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 George. 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 alternatives would provide for rehabilitation of the visitor center to improve exhibits and establish an educational component that would focus on resource interpretation 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 storm water 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 draft 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 facilities 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Capper-Cramton Act of 1930, 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 69-168, and Public Law 89-255. JF - EPA number: 050358, 108 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 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 KW - Capper-Cramton Act of 1930, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 69-168, Project Authorization KW - Public Law 89-255, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36437705?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36431827; 11630 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36431827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 25 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36382659; 050616D-050359_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 25 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36382659?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 6 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36381651; 050616D-050359_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36381651?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 3 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36381566; 050616D-050359_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36381566?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 21 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36379618; 050616D-050359_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 21 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36379618?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 10 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36379504; 050616D-050359_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 10 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36379504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36379394; 050616D-050359_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36379394?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 4 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36379288; 050616D-050359_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36379288?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36379195; 050616D-050359_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36379195?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 20 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36379102; 050616D-050359_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 20 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36379102?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 5 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36378999; 050616D-050359_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36378999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 16 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36378890; 050616D-050359_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 16 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36378890?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 13 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36378806; 050616D-050359_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 13 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36378806?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREAT FALLS PARK, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - GREAT FALLS PARK, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36378796; 050615D-050358_0007 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 George. 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 alternatives would provide for rehabilitation of the visitor center to improve exhibits and establish an educational component that would focus on resource interpretation 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 storm water 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 draft 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 facilities 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Capper-Cramton Act of 1930, 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 69-168, and Public Law 89-255. JF - EPA number: 050358, 108 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 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 KW - Capper-Cramton Act of 1930, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 69-168, Project Authorization KW - Public Law 89-255, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREAT FALLS PARK, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - GREAT FALLS PARK, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36378769; 050615D-050358_0002 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 George. 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 alternatives would provide for rehabilitation of the visitor center to improve exhibits and establish an educational component that would focus on resource interpretation 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 storm water 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 draft 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 facilities 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Capper-Cramton Act of 1930, 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 69-168, and Public Law 89-255. JF - EPA number: 050358, 108 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 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 KW - Capper-Cramton Act of 1930, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 69-168, Project Authorization KW - Public Law 89-255, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378769?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 23 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36378385; 050616D-050359_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 23 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36378385?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 9 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36377953; 050616D-050359_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 9 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36377953?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREAT FALLS PARK, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - GREAT FALLS PARK, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36374854; 050615D-050358_0003 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 George. 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 alternatives would provide for rehabilitation of the visitor center to improve exhibits and establish an educational component that would focus on resource interpretation 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 storm water 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 draft 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 facilities 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Capper-Cramton Act of 1930, 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 69-168, and Public Law 89-255. JF - EPA number: 050358, 108 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 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 KW - Capper-Cramton Act of 1930, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 69-168, Project Authorization KW - Public Law 89-255, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374854?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 7 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36374601; 050616D-050359_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36374601?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREAT FALLS PARK, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - GREAT FALLS PARK, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36374249; 050615D-050358_0006 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 George. 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 alternatives would provide for rehabilitation of the visitor center to improve exhibits and establish an educational component that would focus on resource interpretation 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 storm water 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 draft 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 facilities 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Capper-Cramton Act of 1930, 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 69-168, and Public Law 89-255. JF - EPA number: 050358, 108 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 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 KW - Capper-Cramton Act of 1930, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 69-168, Project Authorization KW - Public Law 89-255, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374249?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREAT FALLS PARK, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - GREAT FALLS PARK, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36374200; 050615D-050358_0005 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 George. 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 alternatives would provide for rehabilitation of the visitor center to improve exhibits and establish an educational component that would focus on resource interpretation 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 storm water 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 draft 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 facilities 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Capper-Cramton Act of 1930, 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 69-168, and Public Law 89-255. JF - EPA number: 050358, 108 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 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 KW - Capper-Cramton Act of 1930, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 69-168, Project Authorization KW - Public Law 89-255, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374200?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 26 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36372353; 050616D-050359_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 26 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36372353?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 17 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36371965; 050616D-050359_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 17 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36371965?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 11 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36371898; 050616D-050359_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 11 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36371898?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 22 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36370913; 050616D-050359_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 22 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36370913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 8 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36370337; 050616D-050359_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36370337?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 18 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36370274; 050616D-050359_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 18 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36370274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 28 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36368046; 050616D-050359_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 28 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36368046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 24 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36367990; 050616D-050359_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 24 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36367990?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 14 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36367607; 050616D-050359_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 14 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36367607?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 27 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36367334; 050616D-050359_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 27 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36367334?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 19 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36366798; 050616D-050359_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 19 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36366798?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 12 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36366740; 050616D-050359_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 12 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36366740?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREAT FALLS PARK, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - GREAT FALLS PARK, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36366538; 050615D-050358_0004 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 George. 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 alternatives would provide for rehabilitation of the visitor center to improve exhibits and establish an educational component that would focus on resource interpretation 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 storm water 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 draft 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 facilities 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Capper-Cramton Act of 1930, 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 69-168, and Public Law 89-255. JF - EPA number: 050358, 108 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 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 KW - Capper-Cramton Act of 1930, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 69-168, Project Authorization KW - Public Law 89-255, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366538?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREAT FALLS PARK, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - GREAT FALLS PARK, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36366498; 050615D-050358_0001 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 George. 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 alternatives would provide for rehabilitation of the visitor center to improve exhibits and establish an educational component that would focus on resource interpretation 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 storm water 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 draft 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 facilities 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Capper-Cramton Act of 1930, 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 69-168, and Public Law 89-255. JF - EPA number: 050358, 108 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 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 KW - Capper-Cramton Act of 1930, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 69-168, Project Authorization KW - Public Law 89-255, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366498?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 15 of 28] T2 - SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36363629; 050616D-050359_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of expanded visitor facilities and recreational opportunities in the south Denali region of Denali Park, Alaska is proposed. The plan would government management of the area until the year 2020. Over the past 20 years, general growth in the tourism industry statewide has brought more pressure for access to Alaska's wildlands. Visitation to the South Denali region has increased substantially in recent years and expanded recreational opportunities are needed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would support the 1997 Record of Decision for the South Side Denali Development Concept Plan and represent no change from the current policy, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, a new 7,500-square-foot nature center would be constructed on approximately 2.5 acres in the Peters Hills inside the southern boundary of Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be constructed near the junction of Petersville Road and the proposed access road (Mile Post (MP) 28 of Petersville Road) to accommodate private vehicles. A seven-mile access road would be constructed from MP 28 of Petersville Road to the nature center. Upgrading and widening Petersville Road between MP 9.3 and MP 28 would constitute an associated action necessary to implement the alternative. Approximately 31 miles of trails would be constructed in the vicinity of the new nature center. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, a new 16,000-square-foot visitor center would be constructed on a 4.1-acre tract at the highway site in Denali State Park. A paved parking area would be provided on the natural bench across from the Denali View South Wayside near Parks Highway MP 134.6. An access road approximately 3.5 miles in length would be constructed from the parking area to the visitor center. Approximately 13 miles of trails would be provide in the vicinity of the new visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide for a quality visitor experience while protecting resource values at the park; enhance recreational and access opportunities South Denali region for the benefit of a variety of visitors, including Alaskans, independent travelers, and package tour travelers; and preserve the quality of life for residents in nearby communities. Employment pools in the area would be boosted significantly under Alternative C, and the alternative would generally improve the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and other development activities would have minor impacts on water quality, aquatic resources, fish, and wildlife and moderate adverse impacts on soils and cultural resource sites. Approximately six acres of wetlands would be affected, as would 155 acres of terrestrial vegetation. Certain quality of life measures would decline somewhat due to the influx of visitors and employees. The pristine quality of some wilderness experiences would be marred somewhat. 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: 050359, 294 pages, August 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 15 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-42 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve 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/36363629?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SOUTH+DENALI+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+MATANUSKA-SUSITNA+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Talkeetna, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EBEY'S LANDING NATIONAL HISTORICAL RESERVE, COUPEVILLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36441834; 11619 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 draft 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. (123) Annual operating costs are estimated at $977,000. 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). JF - EPA number: 050348, 308 pages, August 19, 2005 PY - 2005 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/36441834?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-19&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EBEY'S LANDING NATIONAL HISTORICAL RESERVE, COUPEVILLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - EBEY'S LANDING NATIONAL HISTORICAL RESERVE, COUPEVILLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36379099; 050610D-050348_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 draft 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. (123) Annual operating costs are estimated at $977,000. 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). JF - EPA number: 050348, 308 pages, August 19, 2005 PY - 2005 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/36379099?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-19&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY HILL MINE EXPANSION, BATTLE MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 1997). AN - 16349874; 11616 AB - PURPOSE: The operation of an open-pit gold mine by the Homestake Mining Company within the historic Eureka Mining District in central Nevada, is proposed. The project area is located 0.7 miles northwest of Eureka, Nevada, in an area known for the production of lead, silver, and gold during the late 1800's. Issues of concern include air quality, geology and minerals, paleontology, water quality and quantity, soils, vegetation resources, woodland products, wildlife and fisheries resources special status species, land use authorization and access, recreation and wilderness, visual resources, cultural heritage, social and economic values, noise and blasting vibrations, and hazardous materials and wastes. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of January 1997. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action plus the Partial Backfilling Alternative. This final supplemental EIS addresses a newly proposed action and the No Action Alternative. The proposed action would include mine development and surface disturbance on a total of 744 acres, including 190 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and 54 acres of private land owned by Homestake. During the expected nine-year life of the project, which would include seven years of mining and two years of reclamation activities, a total of 60 million tons of waste rock, 130 million tons of alluvial overburden, and 18 million tons of ore would be removed from the mine. Most of the waste rock and all of the ore would require drilling and blasting. Several blasts would occur each day. Mine waste would be hauled from the open pit to one of two proposed waste rock dumps and dumped in 50-foot lifts. The Partial Backfilling Alternative, outlined in the final EIS, would significantly reduce the amount of waste rock placed in the dumps and increase the amount of revegetated surface area. Other project facilities would include a crushing, grinding, and agglomeration facility; heap leaching facilities; and an office building and parking lot, a warehouses and shop, growth media stockpiles, a soil borrow source, and powerline and water pipeline corridors. These project components would interconnected by haul roads, service roads, and the main access road connecting the facility with US 50. Runoff would be directed around the open pit and the general mine site by diversion ditches constructed upgradient of the general mine site. Also under consideration in the final EIS were two rock dump site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the employment of an average of 225 workers during the construction period and 121 permanent workers through the life of the operation. The total annual payroll would be $5.2 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Geochemical testing indicates that arsenic and aluminum could leach from the alluvium and oxidized limestone; extremely low levels of arsenic could reach groundwater. Of the 744 acres disturbed by mining operations, 451 acres would be tree-dominated land and the remainder would be shrub-dominated land. Approximately 34 animal unit months (AUMs) of forage would be lost to livestock grazing permittees during the project and three AUMs would be permanently displaced. Mine operations would result in the loss of habitat for mule deer and breeding birds and the potential loss of habitat for threatened and endangered species. The waste rock dump sites would create a visual contrast with the surrounding countryside. Mining would displace 190 acres of dispersed recreation land, 25 acres of which would be lost permanently. Noise levels would increase slightly for Eureka residents. 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, see 05-0318D, Volume 29, Number 3. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 96-0318D, Volume 20, Number 4 and 96-0543, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050345, 431 pages and maps, August 18, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/BM/PL-05/018+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Roads KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife KW - Nevada 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/16349874?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+HILL+MINE+EXPANSION%2C+BATTLE+MOUNTAIN+DISTRICT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+1997%29.&rft.title=RUBY+HILL+MINE+EXPANSION%2C+BATTLE+MOUNTAIN+DISTRICT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+1997%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COTEAU PROPERTIES COMPANY FEDERAL COAL LEASE APPLICATION NDM 91535 FOR WEST MINE AREA, FREEDOM MINE, MERCER COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 16358352; 11614 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing of federal coal estate under 5,571 acres of private land surface in the West Mine Area (WMA) in Mercer County, North Dakota is proposed. The applicant, Coteau Properties Company, would mine the area as a complement to its existing Freedom Mine, which lies adjacent to the lease tract. The WMA lies in the glaciated northern Great Plans, south of the Missouri River. Critical elements of the human and natural environments that could be affected by the proposed action include cultural resources, including resources of concern to Native Americans, threatened and endangered species, air quality, water quality, prime and unique farmland, invasive nonnative species, wetlands and riparian zones, and environmental justice. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B), which would reject the lease application, are considered in this draft EIS. The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would lease the tracts as requested. All 5,571 acres would be leased, allowing for the removal of an estimated 90 million tons of federal lignite. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would issue the lease subject to special requirements to protect cultural resources at the site, with particular emphasis on the preservation of prehistoric Native American stone features. Developed based on tribal consultations, this alternative would set aside approximately 1,325 acres, 14 historic properties, 38 sites, 327 stone rings, 93 stone cairns, 11 stone alignments, one stone effigy, and seven burial sites. The plan would set aside $200,000 in an American Indian Education Trust and provide for research on the archaeological value of the remaining features. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Leasing would extend the projected lifetime of the Freedom Mine without an annual increase in production. Economic stability would be maintained in the communities in this area without placing major additional demands on the existing infrastructure of services. Cultural resource stipulations would provide as much protection as possible to sites of interest to Native Americans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Regardless of the alternative selected, cultural resources would be affected significantly. Because the surface is privately owned and the federal reserves are not contiguous, activities associat3ed with mining would destroy a significant number of prehistoric American Indian stone features whether or not the federal coal was leased. Though consultation with tribal representatives, it was determined that mining would affect the Hidatsa, Mandan, Arikara, Sioux, and Assiniboine; these tribes have well documented historic ties to the area. Surface disturbances would also displace wildlife habitat and farmland. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 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 04-0379D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050343, 127 pages, August 16, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-05/006 KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Coal KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Minorities KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16358352?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COTEAU+PROPERTIES+COMPANY+FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+NDM+91535+FOR+WEST+MINE+AREA%2C+FREEDOM+MINE%2C+MERCER+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=COTEAU+PROPERTIES+COMPANY+FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+NDM+91535+FOR+WEST+MINE+AREA%2C+FREEDOM+MINE%2C+MERCER+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 Land Management, Dickinson, North Carolina; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 912105908; 11696-4_0003 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 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. The preferred alternative would combine several of the alternatives and apply additional mitigation and outcome- or performance-based field management objectives. This 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 surface disturbance on 7,804 acres. 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 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 pronghorn antelope, greater sage grouse, raptors, and up to 17 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0306D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050344, Draft Supplemental EIS--33 pages, Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement--501 pages and maps, August 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Manufacturing KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-05/009+1310 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Drilling KW - Dunes KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Livestock KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys 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/912105908?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-09&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 - Draft. Preparation date: August 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 912105896; 11696-4_0002 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 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. The preferred alternative would combine several of the alternatives and apply additional mitigation and outcome- or performance-based field management objectives. This 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 surface disturbance on 7,804 acres. 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 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 pronghorn antelope, greater sage grouse, raptors, and up to 17 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0306D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050344, Draft Supplemental EIS--33 pages, Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement--501 pages and maps, August 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Manufacturing KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-05/009+1310 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Drilling KW - Dunes KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Livestock KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys 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/912105896?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-09&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 - Draft. Preparation date: August 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 912105885; 11696-4_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 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. The preferred alternative would combine several of the alternatives and apply additional mitigation and outcome- or performance-based field management objectives. This 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 surface disturbance on 7,804 acres. 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 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 pronghorn antelope, greater sage grouse, raptors, and up to 17 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0306D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050344, Draft Supplemental EIS--33 pages, Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement--501 pages and maps, August 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Manufacturing KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-05/009+1310 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Drilling KW - Dunes KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Livestock KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys 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/912105885?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-09&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 - Draft. Preparation date: August 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE, IDAHO. AN - 36431767; 11682 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve of Blane, Butte, Lincoln, Minidoka, and Power counties, Idaho is proposed. The monument was established on May 2, 1924, and has been expanded six times. The last Presidential Proclamation expanded the boundaries from 54,000 acres to 739,682 acres to include more volcanic features. The monument was established and expanded to protect the Great Rift volcanic rift zone and its associated features, particularly the Craters of the Moon Lava Field. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to facilities and services development, transportation and access, public and visitor use and safety, authorized uses, and natural and cultural resources. 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 a broad array of visitor experiences within the Monument and perpetuate historic use patterns. This alternative would promote more travel and access within the monument and provide for more extensive educational and directional signs throughout the monument. One emphasis would be on maintaining a strong interpretation and education program for visitors to help protect resources, maintain a safe visitor experience, and minimize conflicts with traditional users. This alternative represents the highest accommodation of visitor access to and within the monument. Alternative C would emphasize retention and enhancement of the monument's primitive character, with minimal visitor facilities or services outside the Front country Zone, and less intensive management to influence resource conditions. More acres would be allocated to the Pristine Zone as compared to the other alternatives. This alternative would emphasize opportunities for solitude and provide a more primitive setting fro recreational, education, and management activities; it would also offer protection for geologic and cultural resources and features by limiting access and development. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize aggressive restoration of the 80,000-acre sagebrush steppe community, including noxious weed control and fire management. This alternative would provide fewer acres in the Pristine Zone than Alternative C and less Front country area than Alternative B. Alternative D would target the most acreage for restoration. Commercial service, as well as off-site visitor opportunities, would be emphasized; these commercial services would provide opportunities inside the monument for visitors to experience and learn about the monument's resources and minimize the need for development and agency staffing within the monument. This alternative would also encourage more off-site visitor experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe and environmentally acceptable public use of the monument, the preferred alternative would have substantial long-term benefits due to the completion of the extensive sagebrush steppe restoration program. By encouraging administering agencies to work with partners, including several key gateway communities, the plan would contribute to a general sense of cooperation and enhance public information and services outside the monument. The plan would improve access for fire suppression and resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Damage, theft, vandalism, foot traffic, and other human-caused disturbances of geologic resources, although site-specific, could reach moderate to major intensity in some instances. Removing ciders from materials sites in the monument for road construction and maintenance could result in moderate to major adverse impacts on geologic resources. Fire suppression could also impair geologic processes. Sagebrush steppe restoration would lead to exposure of soils over the affected acreage, increasing wind erosion and potential nutrient loss. Livestock grazing would continue to cause soil compaction, erosion, and changes in soil fertility and productivity. Facility development, including expansion of the visitor center, adding interpretation features and trails in Kings Bowl, and installing kiosks, signs, and wayside exhibits, would cause moderate disturbances to soils and vegetation. Increases in road density, fire break development, and livestock trampling would increase the potential for noxious weed dispersal. Areas around the monument would be affected by agricultural practices. Intense recreational use of ice cave pools could create moderate changes in nutrient concentrations and bacteria levels. Fires, road construction, increases in visitation, livestock grazing, and agricultural developments could result in major damage to sensitive woodland and grassland wildlife species. Livestock grazing could result in damage to cultural resource sites. Prohibition of public use of certain roads would reduce access to some areas within the monument. Expiration of nonrenewable mineral leases would eliminate a source of income for county leaseholders. LEGAL MANDATES: Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-333); Presidential Proclamations 1694, 1916, 2499, 1694, 1916, 2499, 3506, 7373; Public Law 107-213; Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0418D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050329, 642 pages and maps, August 4, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agriculture KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Erosion KW - Fire Control KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazards KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Craters of the Moon National Monument KW - Craters of the Moon Preserve KW - Idaho KW - Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 1694, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 1916, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 2499, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36431767?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CRATERS+OF+THE+MOON+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+PRESERVE%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=CRATERS+OF+THE+MOON+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+PRESERVE%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Shoshone, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE, IDAHO. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE, IDAHO. AN - 36378931; 050601F-050329_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve of Blane, Butte, Lincoln, Minidoka, and Power counties, Idaho is proposed. The monument was established on May 2, 1924, and has been expanded six times. The last Presidential Proclamation expanded the boundaries from 54,000 acres to 739,682 acres to include more volcanic features. The monument was established and expanded to protect the Great Rift volcanic rift zone and its associated features, particularly the Craters of the Moon Lava Field. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to facilities and services development, transportation and access, public and visitor use and safety, authorized uses, and natural and cultural resources. 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 a broad array of visitor experiences within the Monument and perpetuate historic use patterns. This alternative would promote more travel and access within the monument and provide for more extensive educational and directional signs throughout the monument. One emphasis would be on maintaining a strong interpretation and education program for visitors to help protect resources, maintain a safe visitor experience, and minimize conflicts with traditional users. This alternative represents the highest accommodation of visitor access to and within the monument. Alternative C would emphasize retention and enhancement of the monument's primitive character, with minimal visitor facilities or services outside the Front country Zone, and less intensive management to influence resource conditions. More acres would be allocated to the Pristine Zone as compared to the other alternatives. This alternative would emphasize opportunities for solitude and provide a more primitive setting fro recreational, education, and management activities; it would also offer protection for geologic and cultural resources and features by limiting access and development. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize aggressive restoration of the 80,000-acre sagebrush steppe community, including noxious weed control and fire management. This alternative would provide fewer acres in the Pristine Zone than Alternative C and less Front country area than Alternative B. Alternative D would target the most acreage for restoration. Commercial service, as well as off-site visitor opportunities, would be emphasized; these commercial services would provide opportunities inside the monument for visitors to experience and learn about the monument's resources and minimize the need for development and agency staffing within the monument. This alternative would also encourage more off-site visitor experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe and environmentally acceptable public use of the monument, the preferred alternative would have substantial long-term benefits due to the completion of the extensive sagebrush steppe restoration program. By encouraging administering agencies to work with partners, including several key gateway communities, the plan would contribute to a general sense of cooperation and enhance public information and services outside the monument. The plan would improve access for fire suppression and resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Damage, theft, vandalism, foot traffic, and other human-caused disturbances of geologic resources, although site-specific, could reach moderate to major intensity in some instances. Removing ciders from materials sites in the monument for road construction and maintenance could result in moderate to major adverse impacts on geologic resources. Fire suppression could also impair geologic processes. Sagebrush steppe restoration would lead to exposure of soils over the affected acreage, increasing wind erosion and potential nutrient loss. Livestock grazing would continue to cause soil compaction, erosion, and changes in soil fertility and productivity. Facility development, including expansion of the visitor center, adding interpretation features and trails in Kings Bowl, and installing kiosks, signs, and wayside exhibits, would cause moderate disturbances to soils and vegetation. Increases in road density, fire break development, and livestock trampling would increase the potential for noxious weed dispersal. Areas around the monument would be affected by agricultural practices. Intense recreational use of ice cave pools could create moderate changes in nutrient concentrations and bacteria levels. Fires, road construction, increases in visitation, livestock grazing, and agricultural developments could result in major damage to sensitive woodland and grassland wildlife species. Livestock grazing could result in damage to cultural resource sites. Prohibition of public use of certain roads would reduce access to some areas within the monument. Expiration of nonrenewable mineral leases would eliminate a source of income for county leaseholders. LEGAL MANDATES: Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-333); Presidential Proclamations 1694, 1916, 2499, 1694, 1916, 2499, 3506, 7373; Public Law 107-213; Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0418D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050329, 642 pages and maps, August 4, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agriculture KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Erosion KW - Fire Control KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazards KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Craters of the Moon National Monument KW - Craters of the Moon Preserve KW - Idaho KW - Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 1694, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 1916, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 2499, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378931?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CRATERS+OF+THE+MOON+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+PRESERVE%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=CRATERS+OF+THE+MOON+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+PRESERVE%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Shoshone, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE, IDAHO. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT AND PRESERVE, IDAHO. AN - 36366577; 050601F-050329_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve of Blane, Butte, Lincoln, Minidoka, and Power counties, Idaho is proposed. The monument was established on May 2, 1924, and has been expanded six times. The last Presidential Proclamation expanded the boundaries from 54,000 acres to 739,682 acres to include more volcanic features. The monument was established and expanded to protect the Great Rift volcanic rift zone and its associated features, particularly the Craters of the Moon Lava Field. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to facilities and services development, transportation and access, public and visitor use and safety, authorized uses, and natural and cultural resources. 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 a broad array of visitor experiences within the Monument and perpetuate historic use patterns. This alternative would promote more travel and access within the monument and provide for more extensive educational and directional signs throughout the monument. One emphasis would be on maintaining a strong interpretation and education program for visitors to help protect resources, maintain a safe visitor experience, and minimize conflicts with traditional users. This alternative represents the highest accommodation of visitor access to and within the monument. Alternative C would emphasize retention and enhancement of the monument's primitive character, with minimal visitor facilities or services outside the Front country Zone, and less intensive management to influence resource conditions. More acres would be allocated to the Pristine Zone as compared to the other alternatives. This alternative would emphasize opportunities for solitude and provide a more primitive setting fro recreational, education, and management activities; it would also offer protection for geologic and cultural resources and features by limiting access and development. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize aggressive restoration of the 80,000-acre sagebrush steppe community, including noxious weed control and fire management. This alternative would provide fewer acres in the Pristine Zone than Alternative C and less Front country area than Alternative B. Alternative D would target the most acreage for restoration. Commercial service, as well as off-site visitor opportunities, would be emphasized; these commercial services would provide opportunities inside the monument for visitors to experience and learn about the monument's resources and minimize the need for development and agency staffing within the monument. This alternative would also encourage more off-site visitor experiences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safe and environmentally acceptable public use of the monument, the preferred alternative would have substantial long-term benefits due to the completion of the extensive sagebrush steppe restoration program. By encouraging administering agencies to work with partners, including several key gateway communities, the plan would contribute to a general sense of cooperation and enhance public information and services outside the monument. The plan would improve access for fire suppression and resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Damage, theft, vandalism, foot traffic, and other human-caused disturbances of geologic resources, although site-specific, could reach moderate to major intensity in some instances. Removing ciders from materials sites in the monument for road construction and maintenance could result in moderate to major adverse impacts on geologic resources. Fire suppression could also impair geologic processes. Sagebrush steppe restoration would lead to exposure of soils over the affected acreage, increasing wind erosion and potential nutrient loss. Livestock grazing would continue to cause soil compaction, erosion, and changes in soil fertility and productivity. Facility development, including expansion of the visitor center, adding interpretation features and trails in Kings Bowl, and installing kiosks, signs, and wayside exhibits, would cause moderate disturbances to soils and vegetation. Increases in road density, fire break development, and livestock trampling would increase the potential for noxious weed dispersal. Areas around the monument would be affected by agricultural practices. Intense recreational use of ice cave pools could create moderate changes in nutrient concentrations and bacteria levels. Fires, road construction, increases in visitation, livestock grazing, and agricultural developments could result in major damage to sensitive woodland and grassland wildlife species. Livestock grazing could result in damage to cultural resource sites. Prohibition of public use of certain roads would reduce access to some areas within the monument. Expiration of nonrenewable mineral leases would eliminate a source of income for county leaseholders. LEGAL MANDATES: Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-333); Presidential Proclamations 1694, 1916, 2499, 1694, 1916, 2499, 3506, 7373; Public Law 107-213; Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0418D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050329, 642 pages and maps, August 4, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agriculture KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Erosion KW - Fire Control KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazards KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Craters of the Moon National Monument KW - Craters of the Moon Preserve KW - Idaho KW - Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 1694, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 1916, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 2499, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366577?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CRATERS+OF+THE+MOON+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+PRESERVE%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=CRATERS+OF+THE+MOON+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+AND+PRESERVE%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Shoshone, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NOTTAWASEEPI HURON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRANSFER AND CASINO, CALHOUN COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 36436888; 11671 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. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and an site alternative, are considered in this draft 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 paid b 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.). JF - EPA number: 050318, 1,97 pages and maps, July 28, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Research and Development 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/36436888?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NOTTAWASEEPI+HURON+BAND+OF+POTAWATOMI+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRANSFER+AND+CASINO%2C+CALHOUN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=NOTTAWASEEPI+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 28, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NOTTAWASEEPI HURON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRANSFER AND CASINO, CALHOUN COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - NOTTAWASEEPI HURON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS, FEE-TO-TRANSFER AND CASINO, CALHOUN COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 36378484; 050624D-050318_0001 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. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and an site alternative, are considered in this draft 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 paid b 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.). JF - EPA number: 050318, 1,97 pages and maps, July 28, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Research and Development 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/36378484?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NOTTAWASEEPI+HURON+BAND+OF+POTAWATOMI+INDIANS%2C+FEE-TO-TRANSFER+AND+CASINO%2C+CALHOUN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=NOTTAWASEEPI+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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 28, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36441361; 11666 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36441361?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 43 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36386532; 050490F-050313_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 43 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36386532?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 41 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36386278; 050490F-050313_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 41 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36386278?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 87 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36381025; 050490F-050313_0087 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 87 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381025?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 45 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36380728; 050490F-050313_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 45 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380728?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 62 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36380504; 050490F-050313_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 62 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 57 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36380419; 050490F-050313_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 57 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380419?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 60 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36380305; 050490F-050313_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 60 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380305?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 12 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36380171; 050490F-050313_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 12 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 10 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36380004; 050490F-050313_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 10 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380004?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 47 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36379983; 050490F-050313_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 47 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 55 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36379827; 050490F-050313_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 55 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 91 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36379791; 050490F-050313_0091 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 91 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379791?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 90 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36379593; 050490F-050313_0090 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 90 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379593?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 70 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36379383; 050490F-050313_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 70 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379383?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 40 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36379372; 050490F-050313_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 40 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379372?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 68 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36379302; 050490F-050313_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 68 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 66 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36379179; 050490F-050313_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 66 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379179?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 59 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36379036; 050490F-050313_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 59 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379036?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 5 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36378762; 050490F-050313_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378762?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 50 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36378656; 050490F-050313_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 50 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378656?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 54 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36378531; 050490F-050313_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 54 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378531?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 86 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36378441; 050490F-050313_0086 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 86 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378441?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 7 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36378359; 050490F-050313_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378359?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 52 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36378338; 050490F-050313_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 52 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378338?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 24 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36378293; 050490F-050313_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 24 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378293?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 18 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36378185; 050490F-050313_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 18 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378185?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 49 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36378163; 050490F-050313_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 49 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378163?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 23 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36378076; 050490F-050313_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 23 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378076?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 17 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36377958; 050490F-050313_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 17 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36377958?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 6 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36377879; 050490F-050313_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36377879?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 30 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36377689; 050490F-050313_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 30 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36377689?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 58 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36375184; 050490F-050313_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 58 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375184?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 51 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36374981; 050490F-050313_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 51 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374981?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 34 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36374980; 050490F-050313_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 34 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374980?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 46 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36374798; 050490F-050313_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 46 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374798?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 32 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36374779; 050490F-050313_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 32 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 42 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36374568; 050490F-050313_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 42 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374568?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 21 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36374480; 050490F-050313_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 21 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374480?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 64 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36374365; 050490F-050313_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 64 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374365?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 67 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36374096; 050490F-050313_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 67 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374096?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 35 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36373783; 050490F-050313_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 35 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373783?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 19 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36373492; 050490F-050313_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 19 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373492?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 44 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36373103; 050490F-050313_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 44 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373103?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 89 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36371415; 050490F-050313_0089 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 89 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371415?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRASSHOPPER FUELS MANAGEMENT, DILLON RANGER DISTRICT, BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE NATIONAL FOREST, BEAVERHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - GRASSHOPPER FUELS MANAGEMENT, DILLON RANGER DISTRICT, BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE NATIONAL FOREST, BEAVERHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 36370796; 050595F-050314_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fuels management plan in the 16,500-acre Grasshopper area with the Dillon Ranger District of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Beaverhead County, Montana is proposed. The project area lies in the upper Grasshopper Valley of the Pioneer Mountains 35 miles northwest of Dillon. Portions of the area are managed by the Dillon Area Resource Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The area has an extensive urban-wildland interface that includes the Maverick Mountain ski area, Elkhorn Hot Springs and Resort, Grasshopper and Price Creek Campgrounds, Crystal Park Picnic and Digging Area, the Pioneer Mountains Scenic Byway, approximately 600 acres of private land holdings, and private property, dwellings, and businesses near the FS/BLM boundary. Severe fires over the last 15 years have raised concerns regarding fuel levels in upper Grasshopper Valley. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The objective of all three action alternatives would be to break up fuel continuity and reduce hazardous fuels in strategic locations along the FS/BLM boundary and in "values at risk" areas. Treatments would involve reducing existing ground fuel buildups and breaking up ground fuels continuity and arrangement, along with removal of ladder fuels. Increasing tree crown spacing by thinning or stand crown cover separation by creating small openings and removing dead trees in some stands may further reduce torching potential and limit crown fire spread. Treatments would also include prescribed burning in sagebrush and grass communities that have experienced conifer encroachment. Treatments would be accomplished via mechanized equipment outside inventoried roadless areas and chainsaw felling within inventories roadless areas. The proposed action (Alternative 1) would treat fuels on 3,814 acres, including 1,547 acres within inventoried roadless area 1006-D. Commercial harvest would be implemented on approximately 1,207 acres outside inventoried roadless areas to remove and utilize merchantable trees. The preferred alternative would require the construction of seven miles of temporary road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed treatments would reduce the spread and intensity of future surface fires, decrease the probability of torching, crown fire, and increase the probability of safely defending life and property from fire. The plan would provide an increased margin of safety to the public and create 62 local jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities in inventoried roadless area would decrease their value as potential wilderness areas and alter old-growth forest habitat, including habitat for Canada lynx, a federally protected species. Both habitat and habitat connectivity could be affected. In the short-term, timber harvest, road construction, and prescribed burning would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, exacerbate erosion and sedimentation of receiving. Clearing in some areas could result in the spread of invasive noxious weeds. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0373D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050314, 195 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Employment KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Forests KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Ski Areas KW - Roads KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Urban Development KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest KW - Montana KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRASSHOPPER+FUELS+MANAGEMENT%2C+DILLON+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BEAVERHEAD+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=GRASSHOPPER+FUELS+MANAGEMENT%2C+DILLON+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BEAVERHEAD+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Dillon, Montana; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 93 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36370669; 050490F-050313_0093 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 93 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370669?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 20 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36369356; 050490F-050313_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 20 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369356?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 65 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36369220; 050490F-050313_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 65 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369220?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 88 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36367282; 050490F-050313_0088 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 88 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367282?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 4 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36366886; 050490F-050313_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366886?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 8 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36366821; 050490F-050313_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366821?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 14 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36366714; 050490F-050313_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 14 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366714?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 13 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36366546; 050490F-050313_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 13 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366546?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 92 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36366445; 050490F-050313_0092 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 92 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366445?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 85 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36366238; 050490F-050313_0085 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 85 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366238?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 79 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36366229; 050490F-050313_0079 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 79 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366229?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 84 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36366086; 050490F-050313_0084 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 84 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366086?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 83 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36366084; 050490F-050313_0083 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 83 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366084?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 75 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36366058; 050490F-050313_0075 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 75 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366058?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 26 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36364749; 050490F-050313_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 26 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364749?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 31 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36364525; 050490F-050313_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 31 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364525?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 72 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36364418; 050490F-050313_0072 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 72 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364418?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 71 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36364152; 050490F-050313_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 71 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364152?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 76 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36363791; 050490F-050313_0076 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 76 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363791?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 73 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36363510; 050490F-050313_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 73 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363510?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 81 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36363164; 050490F-050313_0081 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 81 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363164?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36362408; 050490F-050313_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362408?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 38 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36362036; 050490F-050313_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 38 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362036?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 78 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36361329; 050490F-050313_0078 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 78 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361329?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%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 Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRASSHOPPER FUELS MANAGEMENT, DILLON RANGER DISTRICT, BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE NATIONAL FOREST, BEAVERHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 16344530; 11667 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fuels management plan in the 16,500-acre Grasshopper area with the Dillon Ranger District of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Beaverhead County, Montana is proposed. The project area lies in the upper Grasshopper Valley of the Pioneer Mountains 35 miles northwest of Dillon. Portions of the area are managed by the Dillon Area Resource Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The area has an extensive urban-wildland interface that includes the Maverick Mountain ski area, Elkhorn Hot Springs and Resort, Grasshopper and Price Creek Campgrounds, Crystal Park Picnic and Digging Area, the Pioneer Mountains Scenic Byway, approximately 600 acres of private land holdings, and private property, dwellings, and businesses near the FS/BLM boundary. Severe fires over the last 15 years have raised concerns regarding fuel levels in upper Grasshopper Valley. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The objective of all three action alternatives would be to break up fuel continuity and reduce hazardous fuels in strategic locations along the FS/BLM boundary and in "values at risk" areas. Treatments would involve reducing existing ground fuel buildups and breaking up ground fuels continuity and arrangement, along with removal of ladder fuels. Increasing tree crown spacing by thinning or stand crown cover separation by creating small openings and removing dead trees in some stands may further reduce torching potential and limit crown fire spread. Treatments would also include prescribed burning in sagebrush and grass communities that have experienced conifer encroachment. Treatments would be accomplished via mechanized equipment outside inventoried roadless areas and chainsaw felling within inventories roadless areas. The proposed action (Alternative 1) would treat fuels on 3,814 acres, including 1,547 acres within inventoried roadless area 1006-D. Commercial harvest would be implemented on approximately 1,207 acres outside inventoried roadless areas to remove and utilize merchantable trees. The preferred alternative would require the construction of seven miles of temporary road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed treatments would reduce the spread and intensity of future surface fires, decrease the probability of torching, crown fire, and increase the probability of safely defending life and property from fire. The plan would provide an increased margin of safety to the public and create 62 local jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities in inventoried roadless area would decrease their value as potential wilderness areas and alter old-growth forest habitat, including habitat for Canada lynx, a federally protected species. Both habitat and habitat connectivity could be affected. In the short-term, timber harvest, road construction, and prescribed burning would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, exacerbate erosion and sedimentation of receiving. Clearing in some areas could result in the spread of invasive noxious weeds. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0373D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050314, 195 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Employment KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Forests KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Ski Areas KW - Roads KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Vegetation KW - Urban Development KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest KW - Montana KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16344530?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRASSHOPPER+FUELS+MANAGEMENT%2C+DILLON+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BEAVERHEAD+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=GRASSHOPPER+FUELS+MANAGEMENT%2C+DILLON+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BEAVERHEAD+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Dillon, Montana; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NIOBRARA NATIONAL SCENIC RIVER, BROWN, CHERRY, KEYA PAHA, AND ROCK COUNTIES, NEBRASKA: GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 36443753; 11664 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 draft 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 government 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 expended corridor under the preferred regulatory and boundary alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050311, 195 pages, July 22, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-36 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/36443753?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-22&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2005 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. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - NIOBRARA NATIONAL SCENIC RIVER, BROWN, CHERRY, KEYA PAHA, AND ROCK COUNTIES, NEBRASKA: GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 36378821; 050594D-050311_0001 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 draft 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 government 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 expended corridor under the preferred regulatory and boundary alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050311, 195 pages, July 22, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-36 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/36378821?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-22&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE ELY DISTRICT, LINCOLN, NYE, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA AN - 36412823; 11661 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a component of the Great Basin Restoration Initiative (GBRI) within the 11.4-million-acre Ely District of Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. The GBRI is a Bureau of Land Management program focusing on five western states, including Nevada, to restore the landscape, including watersheds and vegetation, with the Great Basin geographical area to a healthy and resilient condition. There is a critical need to restore and maintain the ecological diversity and resiliency within major portions of the Great Basin. The vegetative communities of the Great Basin have changed substantially over the past 150 years due to livestock grazing, recreation, forest and woodland management, fire management, mineral exploration and mining, off-highway vehicle use, and the inadvertent introduction of noxious weeds and exotic invasive species. Five 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 E) would represent a shift from commodity or individual resource allocation approach to an ecological systems approach. The alternative would emphasize improvement of ecological conditions and a high level of natural resource protection via management of natural and manmade disturbances to avoid crossing vegetation thresholds while also providing for resource uses. This alternative would balance the need to restore, enhance, and protect resources with the public's desire for the production of food, fiber, minerals, and services on public lands. Restoration measures would incorporate both passive and active methods and would be implemented proactively to build resiliency to prevent further degradation of ecological systems. The plan would address the need to increase herbaceous vegetation, forage allocation for wildlife and livestock, sagebrush communities, fish and wildlife habitats, sensitive resources, off-highway vehicle use restrictions (such vehicles would be directed to 734,000 acres emphasizing off-highway vehicle uses), and prescribed fire to the greatest extent possible as a vegetation treatment tool following watershed analysis. In all, the treatments would encompass approximately 6.2 million acres, while maintenance activities would encompass 4.6 million acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed resource management plan would provide programmatic direction for landscape restoration on a watershed basis. This area-wide approach would be superior to the, for example, fragmented allotment-by-allotment management techniques used for grazing management in the past. Restoration measures would result in the reinstatement of vegetation composed primarily of those plants expected to live within a given portion of a watershed, based upon its soil potential. Such plants would be of varying ages and sizes and would be resilient to natural disturbance. Over time, fewer and fewer noxious would be present on the landscape, and the basin would more closely resemble its historic diversity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management activities would be expected to affect air quality and climate, water resources, soil resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife, special status species, other wildlife species, cultural and paleontogical resources, visual resources, land and resource ownership, renewable energy resources, travel management, livestock grazing, woodland and native plant communities, geological sites and mineral extraction, watershed resources, fire management, special areas, economic and social conditions, and public health and safety. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050308, Executive Summary--50 pages; Draft EIS--564 pages, CD-ROM, July 21, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/EL/PL-05/019+1610 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Farmlands KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Range Management KW - Soils KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Watersheds KW - Water Quality KW - Weather KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/36412823?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+ELY+DISTRICT%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+ELY+DISTRICT%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36380097; 050591F-050307_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project to provide for salmon and steelhead trout habitat restoration along 42 miles of prime habitat on Battle Creek and six miles of habitat on its tributaries in California is proposed. The project operates under a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license held by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The upper limit of the study area on North Fork Battle Creek is the absolute natural fish barrier above the North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam, 14 miles upstream of the confluence. The upper limit of the study area on South Fork Battle Creek is the natural fish barrier above the South Diversion Dam. The lower project limit is nine miles upstream of the confluence of Battle Creek and the Sacramento River at a location just below the confluence of the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace channel and the main stem of Battle Creek. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of July 2003. The supplemental draft EIS of February 2005 addressed updated information regarding the project that had come to light following publication of the draft EIS. The preferred Five Dam Removal Alternative would involve removal of the Wildcat, South, Soap Creek Feeder, Lower Ripley Creek Feeder, and Coleman diversion dams. In addition, fish screens and fish ladders would be installed at North Battle Creek Feeder, Eagle Canyon, and Inskip diversion dams. Tailrace connectors would be installed to convey water directly from the Inskip and South powerhouses to downstream canals to meet several fishery restoration goals. A penstock bypass facility would be replaced at Inskip powerhouse. Springs at the Eagle Canyon, Soap Creek/Bluff, Lower Ripley, and Darrah Springs areas would release flows to adjacent stream sections. Water leaving the South powerhouse would be conveyed through a new connector (a free-flow tunnel) and outlet works to the Inskip Canal. Water leaving the Inskip powerhouse would be conveyed through a new full-flow buried pipeline and outlet works to the Coleman Canal. The South powerhouse bypass would be integrated with the new tailrace connector to prevent the mixing of North Fork and South Fork flows. The Inskip powerhouse bypass would be replaced with a new pipeline and chute system that would prevent the mixing of these flows and ensure full-flow delivery of water to the Coleman Canal. The project would be supported by a detailed facility monitoring plan, water diversion rights agreements, a water acquisition fund, and an adaptive management fund. This final EIS considers the Five Dam Alternative, which remains the proposed action, as well as the No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Modification of the hydroelectric facilities and operations would enable safe passage for naturally produced salmonids and would facilitate their growth and recovery in the Sacramento River and its tributaries. The benefiting salmonids would include Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, state- and federally listed as threatened; Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, state- and federally listed at endangered; and Central Valley steelhead trout, federally listed as threatened. The project would also provide substantial benefits to amphibian habitat by reducing adverse effects of flow fluctuations and by increasing minimum instream flows. In relation to power generation, the annual power benefits associated with the preferred alternative would be greater than the increased annual total and going-forward cost of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Significant construction-related impacts to riparian and wetland habitat would result from the project. Potential habitat disturbances could affect a number of special status species, including valley elderberry longhorn beetle, foothill yellow-legged frog, northwestern pond turtle, yellow-breasted chat, nesting raptors, and bats, though these impacts would be reduced to insignificance. Certain improvements would degrade visual aesthetics in the area of the Oasis Springs Lodge. Removal of the Wildcat and Coleman diversion dams and modification of the Eagle Canyon and Inskip diversion dams would result in the destruction or alteration of historically significant structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft, see 04-0038D, Volume 28, Number 1, and 05-0368D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050307, 787 pages and maps; CD-ROM, July 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-234 KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Battle Creek KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380097?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36379706; 050591F-050307_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project to provide for salmon and steelhead trout habitat restoration along 42 miles of prime habitat on Battle Creek and six miles of habitat on its tributaries in California is proposed. The project operates under a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license held by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The upper limit of the study area on North Fork Battle Creek is the absolute natural fish barrier above the North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam, 14 miles upstream of the confluence. The upper limit of the study area on South Fork Battle Creek is the natural fish barrier above the South Diversion Dam. The lower project limit is nine miles upstream of the confluence of Battle Creek and the Sacramento River at a location just below the confluence of the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace channel and the main stem of Battle Creek. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of July 2003. The supplemental draft EIS of February 2005 addressed updated information regarding the project that had come to light following publication of the draft EIS. The preferred Five Dam Removal Alternative would involve removal of the Wildcat, South, Soap Creek Feeder, Lower Ripley Creek Feeder, and Coleman diversion dams. In addition, fish screens and fish ladders would be installed at North Battle Creek Feeder, Eagle Canyon, and Inskip diversion dams. Tailrace connectors would be installed to convey water directly from the Inskip and South powerhouses to downstream canals to meet several fishery restoration goals. A penstock bypass facility would be replaced at Inskip powerhouse. Springs at the Eagle Canyon, Soap Creek/Bluff, Lower Ripley, and Darrah Springs areas would release flows to adjacent stream sections. Water leaving the South powerhouse would be conveyed through a new connector (a free-flow tunnel) and outlet works to the Inskip Canal. Water leaving the Inskip powerhouse would be conveyed through a new full-flow buried pipeline and outlet works to the Coleman Canal. The South powerhouse bypass would be integrated with the new tailrace connector to prevent the mixing of North Fork and South Fork flows. The Inskip powerhouse bypass would be replaced with a new pipeline and chute system that would prevent the mixing of these flows and ensure full-flow delivery of water to the Coleman Canal. The project would be supported by a detailed facility monitoring plan, water diversion rights agreements, a water acquisition fund, and an adaptive management fund. This final EIS considers the Five Dam Alternative, which remains the proposed action, as well as the No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Modification of the hydroelectric facilities and operations would enable safe passage for naturally produced salmonids and would facilitate their growth and recovery in the Sacramento River and its tributaries. The benefiting salmonids would include Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, state- and federally listed as threatened; Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, state- and federally listed at endangered; and Central Valley steelhead trout, federally listed as threatened. The project would also provide substantial benefits to amphibian habitat by reducing adverse effects of flow fluctuations and by increasing minimum instream flows. In relation to power generation, the annual power benefits associated with the preferred alternative would be greater than the increased annual total and going-forward cost of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Significant construction-related impacts to riparian and wetland habitat would result from the project. Potential habitat disturbances could affect a number of special status species, including valley elderberry longhorn beetle, foothill yellow-legged frog, northwestern pond turtle, yellow-breasted chat, nesting raptors, and bats, though these impacts would be reduced to insignificance. Certain improvements would degrade visual aesthetics in the area of the Oasis Springs Lodge. Removal of the Wildcat and Coleman diversion dams and modification of the Eagle Canyon and Inskip diversion dams would result in the destruction or alteration of historically significant structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft, see 04-0038D, Volume 28, Number 1, and 05-0368D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050307, 787 pages and maps; CD-ROM, July 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-234 KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Battle Creek KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379706?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36379066; 050591F-050307_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project to provide for salmon and steelhead trout habitat restoration along 42 miles of prime habitat on Battle Creek and six miles of habitat on its tributaries in California is proposed. The project operates under a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license held by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The upper limit of the study area on North Fork Battle Creek is the absolute natural fish barrier above the North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam, 14 miles upstream of the confluence. The upper limit of the study area on South Fork Battle Creek is the natural fish barrier above the South Diversion Dam. The lower project limit is nine miles upstream of the confluence of Battle Creek and the Sacramento River at a location just below the confluence of the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace channel and the main stem of Battle Creek. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of July 2003. The supplemental draft EIS of February 2005 addressed updated information regarding the project that had come to light following publication of the draft EIS. The preferred Five Dam Removal Alternative would involve removal of the Wildcat, South, Soap Creek Feeder, Lower Ripley Creek Feeder, and Coleman diversion dams. In addition, fish screens and fish ladders would be installed at North Battle Creek Feeder, Eagle Canyon, and Inskip diversion dams. Tailrace connectors would be installed to convey water directly from the Inskip and South powerhouses to downstream canals to meet several fishery restoration goals. A penstock bypass facility would be replaced at Inskip powerhouse. Springs at the Eagle Canyon, Soap Creek/Bluff, Lower Ripley, and Darrah Springs areas would release flows to adjacent stream sections. Water leaving the South powerhouse would be conveyed through a new connector (a free-flow tunnel) and outlet works to the Inskip Canal. Water leaving the Inskip powerhouse would be conveyed through a new full-flow buried pipeline and outlet works to the Coleman Canal. The South powerhouse bypass would be integrated with the new tailrace connector to prevent the mixing of North Fork and South Fork flows. The Inskip powerhouse bypass would be replaced with a new pipeline and chute system that would prevent the mixing of these flows and ensure full-flow delivery of water to the Coleman Canal. The project would be supported by a detailed facility monitoring plan, water diversion rights agreements, a water acquisition fund, and an adaptive management fund. This final EIS considers the Five Dam Alternative, which remains the proposed action, as well as the No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Modification of the hydroelectric facilities and operations would enable safe passage for naturally produced salmonids and would facilitate their growth and recovery in the Sacramento River and its tributaries. The benefiting salmonids would include Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, state- and federally listed as threatened; Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, state- and federally listed at endangered; and Central Valley steelhead trout, federally listed as threatened. The project would also provide substantial benefits to amphibian habitat by reducing adverse effects of flow fluctuations and by increasing minimum instream flows. In relation to power generation, the annual power benefits associated with the preferred alternative would be greater than the increased annual total and going-forward cost of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Significant construction-related impacts to riparian and wetland habitat would result from the project. Potential habitat disturbances could affect a number of special status species, including valley elderberry longhorn beetle, foothill yellow-legged frog, northwestern pond turtle, yellow-breasted chat, nesting raptors, and bats, though these impacts would be reduced to insignificance. Certain improvements would degrade visual aesthetics in the area of the Oasis Springs Lodge. Removal of the Wildcat and Coleman diversion dams and modification of the Eagle Canyon and Inskip diversion dams would result in the destruction or alteration of historically significant structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft, see 04-0038D, Volume 28, Number 1, and 05-0368D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050307, 787 pages and maps; CD-ROM, July 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-234 KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Battle Creek KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379066?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36378992; 050591F-050307_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project to provide for salmon and steelhead trout habitat restoration along 42 miles of prime habitat on Battle Creek and six miles of habitat on its tributaries in California is proposed. The project operates under a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license held by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The upper limit of the study area on North Fork Battle Creek is the absolute natural fish barrier above the North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam, 14 miles upstream of the confluence. The upper limit of the study area on South Fork Battle Creek is the natural fish barrier above the South Diversion Dam. The lower project limit is nine miles upstream of the confluence of Battle Creek and the Sacramento River at a location just below the confluence of the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace channel and the main stem of Battle Creek. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of July 2003. The supplemental draft EIS of February 2005 addressed updated information regarding the project that had come to light following publication of the draft EIS. The preferred Five Dam Removal Alternative would involve removal of the Wildcat, South, Soap Creek Feeder, Lower Ripley Creek Feeder, and Coleman diversion dams. In addition, fish screens and fish ladders would be installed at North Battle Creek Feeder, Eagle Canyon, and Inskip diversion dams. Tailrace connectors would be installed to convey water directly from the Inskip and South powerhouses to downstream canals to meet several fishery restoration goals. A penstock bypass facility would be replaced at Inskip powerhouse. Springs at the Eagle Canyon, Soap Creek/Bluff, Lower Ripley, and Darrah Springs areas would release flows to adjacent stream sections. Water leaving the South powerhouse would be conveyed through a new connector (a free-flow tunnel) and outlet works to the Inskip Canal. Water leaving the Inskip powerhouse would be conveyed through a new full-flow buried pipeline and outlet works to the Coleman Canal. The South powerhouse bypass would be integrated with the new tailrace connector to prevent the mixing of North Fork and South Fork flows. The Inskip powerhouse bypass would be replaced with a new pipeline and chute system that would prevent the mixing of these flows and ensure full-flow delivery of water to the Coleman Canal. The project would be supported by a detailed facility monitoring plan, water diversion rights agreements, a water acquisition fund, and an adaptive management fund. This final EIS considers the Five Dam Alternative, which remains the proposed action, as well as the No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Modification of the hydroelectric facilities and operations would enable safe passage for naturally produced salmonids and would facilitate their growth and recovery in the Sacramento River and its tributaries. The benefiting salmonids would include Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, state- and federally listed as threatened; Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, state- and federally listed at endangered; and Central Valley steelhead trout, federally listed as threatened. The project would also provide substantial benefits to amphibian habitat by reducing adverse effects of flow fluctuations and by increasing minimum instream flows. In relation to power generation, the annual power benefits associated with the preferred alternative would be greater than the increased annual total and going-forward cost of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Significant construction-related impacts to riparian and wetland habitat would result from the project. Potential habitat disturbances could affect a number of special status species, including valley elderberry longhorn beetle, foothill yellow-legged frog, northwestern pond turtle, yellow-breasted chat, nesting raptors, and bats, though these impacts would be reduced to insignificance. Certain improvements would degrade visual aesthetics in the area of the Oasis Springs Lodge. Removal of the Wildcat and Coleman diversion dams and modification of the Eagle Canyon and Inskip diversion dams would result in the destruction or alteration of historically significant structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft, see 04-0038D, Volume 28, Number 1, and 05-0368D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050307, 787 pages and maps; CD-ROM, July 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-234 KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Battle Creek KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378992?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36378033; 050591F-050307_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project to provide for salmon and steelhead trout habitat restoration along 42 miles of prime habitat on Battle Creek and six miles of habitat on its tributaries in California is proposed. The project operates under a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license held by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The upper limit of the study area on North Fork Battle Creek is the absolute natural fish barrier above the North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam, 14 miles upstream of the confluence. The upper limit of the study area on South Fork Battle Creek is the natural fish barrier above the South Diversion Dam. The lower project limit is nine miles upstream of the confluence of Battle Creek and the Sacramento River at a location just below the confluence of the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace channel and the main stem of Battle Creek. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of July 2003. The supplemental draft EIS of February 2005 addressed updated information regarding the project that had come to light following publication of the draft EIS. The preferred Five Dam Removal Alternative would involve removal of the Wildcat, South, Soap Creek Feeder, Lower Ripley Creek Feeder, and Coleman diversion dams. In addition, fish screens and fish ladders would be installed at North Battle Creek Feeder, Eagle Canyon, and Inskip diversion dams. Tailrace connectors would be installed to convey water directly from the Inskip and South powerhouses to downstream canals to meet several fishery restoration goals. A penstock bypass facility would be replaced at Inskip powerhouse. Springs at the Eagle Canyon, Soap Creek/Bluff, Lower Ripley, and Darrah Springs areas would release flows to adjacent stream sections. Water leaving the South powerhouse would be conveyed through a new connector (a free-flow tunnel) and outlet works to the Inskip Canal. Water leaving the Inskip powerhouse would be conveyed through a new full-flow buried pipeline and outlet works to the Coleman Canal. The South powerhouse bypass would be integrated with the new tailrace connector to prevent the mixing of North Fork and South Fork flows. The Inskip powerhouse bypass would be replaced with a new pipeline and chute system that would prevent the mixing of these flows and ensure full-flow delivery of water to the Coleman Canal. The project would be supported by a detailed facility monitoring plan, water diversion rights agreements, a water acquisition fund, and an adaptive management fund. This final EIS considers the Five Dam Alternative, which remains the proposed action, as well as the No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Modification of the hydroelectric facilities and operations would enable safe passage for naturally produced salmonids and would facilitate their growth and recovery in the Sacramento River and its tributaries. The benefiting salmonids would include Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, state- and federally listed as threatened; Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, state- and federally listed at endangered; and Central Valley steelhead trout, federally listed as threatened. The project would also provide substantial benefits to amphibian habitat by reducing adverse effects of flow fluctuations and by increasing minimum instream flows. In relation to power generation, the annual power benefits associated with the preferred alternative would be greater than the increased annual total and going-forward cost of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Significant construction-related impacts to riparian and wetland habitat would result from the project. Potential habitat disturbances could affect a number of special status species, including valley elderberry longhorn beetle, foothill yellow-legged frog, northwestern pond turtle, yellow-breasted chat, nesting raptors, and bats, though these impacts would be reduced to insignificance. Certain improvements would degrade visual aesthetics in the area of the Oasis Springs Lodge. Removal of the Wildcat and Coleman diversion dams and modification of the Eagle Canyon and Inskip diversion dams would result in the destruction or alteration of historically significant structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft, see 04-0038D, Volume 28, Number 1, and 05-0368D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050307, 787 pages and maps; CD-ROM, July 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-234 KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Battle Creek KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36377936; 050591F-050307_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project to provide for salmon and steelhead trout habitat restoration along 42 miles of prime habitat on Battle Creek and six miles of habitat on its tributaries in California is proposed. The project operates under a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license held by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The upper limit of the study area on North Fork Battle Creek is the absolute natural fish barrier above the North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam, 14 miles upstream of the confluence. The upper limit of the study area on South Fork Battle Creek is the natural fish barrier above the South Diversion Dam. The lower project limit is nine miles upstream of the confluence of Battle Creek and the Sacramento River at a location just below the confluence of the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace channel and the main stem of Battle Creek. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of July 2003. The supplemental draft EIS of February 2005 addressed updated information regarding the project that had come to light following publication of the draft EIS. The preferred Five Dam Removal Alternative would involve removal of the Wildcat, South, Soap Creek Feeder, Lower Ripley Creek Feeder, and Coleman diversion dams. In addition, fish screens and fish ladders would be installed at North Battle Creek Feeder, Eagle Canyon, and Inskip diversion dams. Tailrace connectors would be installed to convey water directly from the Inskip and South powerhouses to downstream canals to meet several fishery restoration goals. A penstock bypass facility would be replaced at Inskip powerhouse. Springs at the Eagle Canyon, Soap Creek/Bluff, Lower Ripley, and Darrah Springs areas would release flows to adjacent stream sections. Water leaving the South powerhouse would be conveyed through a new connector (a free-flow tunnel) and outlet works to the Inskip Canal. Water leaving the Inskip powerhouse would be conveyed through a new full-flow buried pipeline and outlet works to the Coleman Canal. The South powerhouse bypass would be integrated with the new tailrace connector to prevent the mixing of North Fork and South Fork flows. The Inskip powerhouse bypass would be replaced with a new pipeline and chute system that would prevent the mixing of these flows and ensure full-flow delivery of water to the Coleman Canal. The project would be supported by a detailed facility monitoring plan, water diversion rights agreements, a water acquisition fund, and an adaptive management fund. This final EIS considers the Five Dam Alternative, which remains the proposed action, as well as the No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Modification of the hydroelectric facilities and operations would enable safe passage for naturally produced salmonids and would facilitate their growth and recovery in the Sacramento River and its tributaries. The benefiting salmonids would include Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, state- and federally listed as threatened; Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, state- and federally listed at endangered; and Central Valley steelhead trout, federally listed as threatened. The project would also provide substantial benefits to amphibian habitat by reducing adverse effects of flow fluctuations and by increasing minimum instream flows. In relation to power generation, the annual power benefits associated with the preferred alternative would be greater than the increased annual total and going-forward cost of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Significant construction-related impacts to riparian and wetland habitat would result from the project. Potential habitat disturbances could affect a number of special status species, including valley elderberry longhorn beetle, foothill yellow-legged frog, northwestern pond turtle, yellow-breasted chat, nesting raptors, and bats, though these impacts would be reduced to insignificance. Certain improvements would degrade visual aesthetics in the area of the Oasis Springs Lodge. Removal of the Wildcat and Coleman diversion dams and modification of the Eagle Canyon and Inskip diversion dams would result in the destruction or alteration of historically significant structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft, see 04-0038D, Volume 28, Number 1, and 05-0368D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050307, 787 pages and maps; CD-ROM, July 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-234 KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Battle Creek KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36377936?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36375097; 050591F-050307_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project to provide for salmon and steelhead trout habitat restoration along 42 miles of prime habitat on Battle Creek and six miles of habitat on its tributaries in California is proposed. The project operates under a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license held by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The upper limit of the study area on North Fork Battle Creek is the absolute natural fish barrier above the North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam, 14 miles upstream of the confluence. The upper limit of the study area on South Fork Battle Creek is the natural fish barrier above the South Diversion Dam. The lower project limit is nine miles upstream of the confluence of Battle Creek and the Sacramento River at a location just below the confluence of the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace channel and the main stem of Battle Creek. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of July 2003. The supplemental draft EIS of February 2005 addressed updated information regarding the project that had come to light following publication of the draft EIS. The preferred Five Dam Removal Alternative would involve removal of the Wildcat, South, Soap Creek Feeder, Lower Ripley Creek Feeder, and Coleman diversion dams. In addition, fish screens and fish ladders would be installed at North Battle Creek Feeder, Eagle Canyon, and Inskip diversion dams. Tailrace connectors would be installed to convey water directly from the Inskip and South powerhouses to downstream canals to meet several fishery restoration goals. A penstock bypass facility would be replaced at Inskip powerhouse. Springs at the Eagle Canyon, Soap Creek/Bluff, Lower Ripley, and Darrah Springs areas would release flows to adjacent stream sections. Water leaving the South powerhouse would be conveyed through a new connector (a free-flow tunnel) and outlet works to the Inskip Canal. Water leaving the Inskip powerhouse would be conveyed through a new full-flow buried pipeline and outlet works to the Coleman Canal. The South powerhouse bypass would be integrated with the new tailrace connector to prevent the mixing of North Fork and South Fork flows. The Inskip powerhouse bypass would be replaced with a new pipeline and chute system that would prevent the mixing of these flows and ensure full-flow delivery of water to the Coleman Canal. The project would be supported by a detailed facility monitoring plan, water diversion rights agreements, a water acquisition fund, and an adaptive management fund. This final EIS considers the Five Dam Alternative, which remains the proposed action, as well as the No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Modification of the hydroelectric facilities and operations would enable safe passage for naturally produced salmonids and would facilitate their growth and recovery in the Sacramento River and its tributaries. The benefiting salmonids would include Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, state- and federally listed as threatened; Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, state- and federally listed at endangered; and Central Valley steelhead trout, federally listed as threatened. The project would also provide substantial benefits to amphibian habitat by reducing adverse effects of flow fluctuations and by increasing minimum instream flows. In relation to power generation, the annual power benefits associated with the preferred alternative would be greater than the increased annual total and going-forward cost of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Significant construction-related impacts to riparian and wetland habitat would result from the project. Potential habitat disturbances could affect a number of special status species, including valley elderberry longhorn beetle, foothill yellow-legged frog, northwestern pond turtle, yellow-breasted chat, nesting raptors, and bats, though these impacts would be reduced to insignificance. Certain improvements would degrade visual aesthetics in the area of the Oasis Springs Lodge. Removal of the Wildcat and Coleman diversion dams and modification of the Eagle Canyon and Inskip diversion dams would result in the destruction or alteration of historically significant structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft, see 04-0038D, Volume 28, Number 1, and 05-0368D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050307, 787 pages and maps; CD-ROM, July 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-234 KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Battle Creek KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375097?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36373838; 050591F-050307_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project to provide for salmon and steelhead trout habitat restoration along 42 miles of prime habitat on Battle Creek and six miles of habitat on its tributaries in California is proposed. The project operates under a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license held by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The upper limit of the study area on North Fork Battle Creek is the absolute natural fish barrier above the North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam, 14 miles upstream of the confluence. The upper limit of the study area on South Fork Battle Creek is the natural fish barrier above the South Diversion Dam. The lower project limit is nine miles upstream of the confluence of Battle Creek and the Sacramento River at a location just below the confluence of the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace channel and the main stem of Battle Creek. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of July 2003. The supplemental draft EIS of February 2005 addressed updated information regarding the project that had come to light following publication of the draft EIS. The preferred Five Dam Removal Alternative would involve removal of the Wildcat, South, Soap Creek Feeder, Lower Ripley Creek Feeder, and Coleman diversion dams. In addition, fish screens and fish ladders would be installed at North Battle Creek Feeder, Eagle Canyon, and Inskip diversion dams. Tailrace connectors would be installed to convey water directly from the Inskip and South powerhouses to downstream canals to meet several fishery restoration goals. A penstock bypass facility would be replaced at Inskip powerhouse. Springs at the Eagle Canyon, Soap Creek/Bluff, Lower Ripley, and Darrah Springs areas would release flows to adjacent stream sections. Water leaving the South powerhouse would be conveyed through a new connector (a free-flow tunnel) and outlet works to the Inskip Canal. Water leaving the Inskip powerhouse would be conveyed through a new full-flow buried pipeline and outlet works to the Coleman Canal. The South powerhouse bypass would be integrated with the new tailrace connector to prevent the mixing of North Fork and South Fork flows. The Inskip powerhouse bypass would be replaced with a new pipeline and chute system that would prevent the mixing of these flows and ensure full-flow delivery of water to the Coleman Canal. The project would be supported by a detailed facility monitoring plan, water diversion rights agreements, a water acquisition fund, and an adaptive management fund. This final EIS considers the Five Dam Alternative, which remains the proposed action, as well as the No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Modification of the hydroelectric facilities and operations would enable safe passage for naturally produced salmonids and would facilitate their growth and recovery in the Sacramento River and its tributaries. The benefiting salmonids would include Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, state- and federally listed as threatened; Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, state- and federally listed at endangered; and Central Valley steelhead trout, federally listed as threatened. The project would also provide substantial benefits to amphibian habitat by reducing adverse effects of flow fluctuations and by increasing minimum instream flows. In relation to power generation, the annual power benefits associated with the preferred alternative would be greater than the increased annual total and going-forward cost of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Significant construction-related impacts to riparian and wetland habitat would result from the project. Potential habitat disturbances could affect a number of special status species, including valley elderberry longhorn beetle, foothill yellow-legged frog, northwestern pond turtle, yellow-breasted chat, nesting raptors, and bats, though these impacts would be reduced to insignificance. Certain improvements would degrade visual aesthetics in the area of the Oasis Springs Lodge. Removal of the Wildcat and Coleman diversion dams and modification of the Eagle Canyon and Inskip diversion dams would result in the destruction or alteration of historically significant structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft, see 04-0038D, Volume 28, Number 1, and 05-0368D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050307, 787 pages and maps; CD-ROM, July 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-234 KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Battle Creek KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373838?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16342923; 11660 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project to provide for salmon and steelhead trout habitat restoration along 42 miles of prime habitat on Battle Creek and six miles of habitat on its tributaries in California is proposed. The project operates under a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license held by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The upper limit of the study area on North Fork Battle Creek is the absolute natural fish barrier above the North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam, 14 miles upstream of the confluence. The upper limit of the study area on South Fork Battle Creek is the natural fish barrier above the South Diversion Dam. The lower project limit is nine miles upstream of the confluence of Battle Creek and the Sacramento River at a location just below the confluence of the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace channel and the main stem of Battle Creek. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of July 2003. The supplemental draft EIS of February 2005 addressed updated information regarding the project that had come to light following publication of the draft EIS. The preferred Five Dam Removal Alternative would involve removal of the Wildcat, South, Soap Creek Feeder, Lower Ripley Creek Feeder, and Coleman diversion dams. In addition, fish screens and fish ladders would be installed at North Battle Creek Feeder, Eagle Canyon, and Inskip diversion dams. Tailrace connectors would be installed to convey water directly from the Inskip and South powerhouses to downstream canals to meet several fishery restoration goals. A penstock bypass facility would be replaced at Inskip powerhouse. Springs at the Eagle Canyon, Soap Creek/Bluff, Lower Ripley, and Darrah Springs areas would release flows to adjacent stream sections. Water leaving the South powerhouse would be conveyed through a new connector (a free-flow tunnel) and outlet works to the Inskip Canal. Water leaving the Inskip powerhouse would be conveyed through a new full-flow buried pipeline and outlet works to the Coleman Canal. The South powerhouse bypass would be integrated with the new tailrace connector to prevent the mixing of North Fork and South Fork flows. The Inskip powerhouse bypass would be replaced with a new pipeline and chute system that would prevent the mixing of these flows and ensure full-flow delivery of water to the Coleman Canal. The project would be supported by a detailed facility monitoring plan, water diversion rights agreements, a water acquisition fund, and an adaptive management fund. This final EIS considers the Five Dam Alternative, which remains the proposed action, as well as the No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Modification of the hydroelectric facilities and operations would enable safe passage for naturally produced salmonids and would facilitate their growth and recovery in the Sacramento River and its tributaries. The benefiting salmonids would include Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, state- and federally listed as threatened; Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, state- and federally listed at endangered; and Central Valley steelhead trout, federally listed as threatened. The project would also provide substantial benefits to amphibian habitat by reducing adverse effects of flow fluctuations and by increasing minimum instream flows. In relation to power generation, the annual power benefits associated with the preferred alternative would be greater than the increased annual total and going-forward cost of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Significant construction-related impacts to riparian and wetland habitat would result from the project. Potential habitat disturbances could affect a number of special status species, including valley elderberry longhorn beetle, foothill yellow-legged frog, northwestern pond turtle, yellow-breasted chat, nesting raptors, and bats, though these impacts would be reduced to insignificance. Certain improvements would degrade visual aesthetics in the area of the Oasis Springs Lodge. Removal of the Wildcat and Coleman diversion dams and modification of the Eagle Canyon and Inskip diversion dams would result in the destruction or alteration of historically significant structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a draft supplement to the draft, see 04-0038D, Volume 28, Number 1, and 05-0368D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050307, 787 pages and maps; CD-ROM, July 21, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-234 KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Battle Creek KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16342923?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36435883; 11650 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 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 - Grande 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/36435883?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 23 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36385908; 050586D-050297_0023 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 23 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 - Grande 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/36385908?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 16 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36385779; 050586D-050297_0016 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 16 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 - Grande 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/36385779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 32 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36385617; 050586D-050297_0032 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 32 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 - Grande 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/36385617?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 11 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36385383; 050586D-050297_0011 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 11 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 - Grande 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/36385383?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 24 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36380212; 050586D-050297_0024 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 24 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 - Grande 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/36380212?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 33 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36380003; 050586D-050297_0033 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 33 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 - Grande 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/36380003?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 17 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36379997; 050586D-050297_0017 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 17 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 - Grande 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/36379997?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 29 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36379906; 050586D-050297_0029 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 29 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 - Grande 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/36379906?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 34 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36379856; 050586D-050297_0034 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 34 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 - Grande 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/36379856?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 10 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36379800; 050586D-050297_0010 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 10 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 - Grande 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/36379800?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36379700; 050586D-050297_0002 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 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 - Grande 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/36379700?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 14 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36379481; 050586D-050297_0014 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 14 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 - Grande 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/36379481?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 8 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36379391; 050586D-050297_0008 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 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 - Grande 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/36379391?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 18 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36378892; 050586D-050297_0018 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 18 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 - Grande 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/36378892?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 6 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36378581; 050586D-050297_0006 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 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 - Grande 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/36378581?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 22 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36378580; 050586D-050297_0022 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 22 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 - Grande 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/36378580?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 4 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36378496; 050586D-050297_0004 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 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 - Grande 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/36378496?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 25 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36378369; 050586D-050297_0025 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 25 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 - Grande 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/36378369?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 30 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36377932; 050586D-050297_0030 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 30 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 - Grande 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/36377932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 20 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36375179; 050586D-050297_0020 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 20 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 - Grande 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/36375179?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 13 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36375111; 050586D-050297_0013 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 13 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 - Grande 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/36375111?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 15 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36375101; 050586D-050297_0015 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 15 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 - Grande 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/36375101?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 12 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36375009; 050586D-050297_0012 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 12 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 - Grande 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/36375009?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 31 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36375008; 050586D-050297_0031 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 31 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 - Grande 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/36375008?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 28 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36374918; 050586D-050297_0028 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 28 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 - Grande 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/36374918?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 35 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36374825; 050586D-050297_0035 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 35 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 - Grande 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/36374825?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 7 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36374818; 050586D-050297_0007 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 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 - Grande 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/36374818?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36374719; 050586D-050297_0001 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 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 - Grande 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/36374719?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 21 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36374291; 050586D-050297_0021 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 21 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 - Grande 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/36374291?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 19 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36374201; 050586D-050297_0019 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 19 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 - Grande 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/36374201?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 9 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36374037; 050586D-050297_0009 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 9 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 - Grande 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/36374037?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 26 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36373698; 050586D-050297_0026 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 26 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 - Grande 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/36373698?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 5 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36373519; 050586D-050297_0005 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 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 - Grande 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/36373519?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 3 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36373430; 050586D-050297_0003 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 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 - Grande 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/36373430?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 27 of 35] T2 - BISON AND ELK MANAGEMNET PLAN, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, GRANDE TETON NATIONAL PARK/JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36372881; 050586D-050297_0027 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 draft 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 proposed action) 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, adn 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 feed grounds 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. JF - EPA number: 050297, 625 pages, July 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 27 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 - Grande 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/36372881?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2FJOHN+D.+ROCKEFELLER%2C+JR.+MEMORIAL+PARKWAY%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+AND+ELK+MANAGEMNET+PLAN%2C+NATIONAL+ELK+REFUGE%2C+GRANDE+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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WELLTON-MOHAWK GENERATING FACILITY, YUMA COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36437434; 11646 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation the Wellton-Mohawk Generating Facility east of Yuma in Yuma County, Arizona are proposed. The proposal also addresses the construction of a new natural gas pipeline and high-voltage transmission line upgrades and additions needed to support the generating facility. The facility would be located adjacent to Western's existing Ligurta Substation, approximately 25 miles east of Yuma, Arizona, and nine miles west of Wellton, Arizona, just north of Interstate 8. The applicant, Dome Valley Energy Partners, LLC, would construct and operate a natural gas-fired combined-cycle electricity generating facility, an associated solar collection field, and ancillary facilities in unincorporated Yuma County, Arizona. The proposed Facility would be developed in two phases. The full output of the first phase would be nominally rated at 260 megawatts (MW) with about 310-MW peaking capacity. With the second phase, the Facility would be nominally rated at 520 MW with peaking capacity of 620 MW via duct burners. Each phase would consist of one combustion turbine, a heat recovery steam generator, a steam turbine, condenser, transformer, cooling towers, tanks, sedimentation/evaporation ponds, auxiliary boilers, an emergency generator, an emergency fire pump, and associated buildings. Water for the facility's use, including cooling, would be provided by the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (Wellton-Mohawk) via the Wellton-Mohawk Canal. Associated with the facility would be a solar component that would convert solar energy to thermal energy for inlet air-cooling. Natural gas for the facility would be delivered via a new natural gas pipeline that would interconnect to a proposed or existing natural gas transmission line near U.S. Highway 95, northwest of the site. The proposed natural gas transmission pipeline would be subject to an independent EPA review as part of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing process. The facility's new natural gas pipeline would parallel the existing Wellton-Mohawk Canal right-of-way for its full length of 12 miles. The first phase of the Facility would interconnect at the Western Area Power Administration's (Western) Ligurta Substation. In response to Dome Valley's proposal, Western conducted a transmission system impact study and determined that upgrades and additions to the existing transmission system were needed to accommodate the facility. Western's proposed actions would include upgrading the existing Ligurta Substation, upgrading Western's existing 12.7-mile Ligurta to Gila transmission line, adding 75 megavolt-ampere transformer capacity between the 161-kilovolt (kV) side and the 69-kV side in Western's Gila Substation near Yuma, constructing a new 18-mile transmission line between the Ligurta Substation and Arizona Public Service's North Gila Substation north of Yuma, and interconnecting this line at the North Gila Substation. The new Ligurta to North Gila transmission line would parallel the existing Wellton-Mohawk Canal for most of its length. In addition, Western would require that primary and secondary communication systems be installed to ensure reliable operation of the transmission system. Portions of the transmission line upgrades and additions and a proposed natural gas pipeline for the Facility would cross lands managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Yuma Field Office (BLM). Since BLM would require rights-of- way grants for portions of the transmission line additions and new natural gas pipeline, BLM will participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS. The proposed Facility would be located on land currently owned by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). Title to this property would be transferred by BOR to Wellton- Mohawk. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two options with respect to the natural gas pipeline. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementing this proposal would incorporate a major new generation resource into Western's system. The delivery of power would be efficient and reliable within the service grid, benefiting mid-users and end-users of electric power. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facility site development would displace 119 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including desert shrubland. Approximately 20 50 30 acres of wind-blown sand deposits, providing suitable habitat for several special-status plant species would be lost. The gas turbines would release emissions of air pollutants, though residual emissions would be well within the applicable ambient air quality standards. Ambient noise in the vicinity of the facility would increase somewhat. The solitude and aesthetics of certain culturally significant sites would be degraded, and general aesthetics in the are, already marred by power lines and other power developments, would be further undermined. Approximately 1.756 million cubic feet of natural gas would be consumed during the 20-year operating life of the generation facility. 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 Wellton-Mowhawk Transfer Act of 2005 (P.L. 106-221) JF - EPA number: 050293, 489 pages, July 14, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0358 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Colorado KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Wellton-Mowhawk Transfer Act of 2005, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36437434?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WELLTON-MOHAWK+GENERATING+FACILITY%2C+YUMA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WELLTON-MOHAWK+GENERATING+FACILITY%2C+YUMA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WELLTON-MOHAWK GENERATING FACILITY, YUMA COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - WELLTON-MOHAWK GENERATING FACILITY, YUMA COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36375085; 050479D-050293_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation the Wellton-Mohawk Generating Facility east of Yuma in Yuma County, Arizona are proposed. The proposal also addresses the construction of a new natural gas pipeline and high-voltage transmission line upgrades and additions needed to support the generating facility. The facility would be located adjacent to Western's existing Ligurta Substation, approximately 25 miles east of Yuma, Arizona, and nine miles west of Wellton, Arizona, just north of Interstate 8. The applicant, Dome Valley Energy Partners, LLC, would construct and operate a natural gas-fired combined-cycle electricity generating facility, an associated solar collection field, and ancillary facilities in unincorporated Yuma County, Arizona. The proposed Facility would be developed in two phases. The full output of the first phase would be nominally rated at 260 megawatts (MW) with about 310-MW peaking capacity. With the second phase, the Facility would be nominally rated at 520 MW with peaking capacity of 620 MW via duct burners. Each phase would consist of one combustion turbine, a heat recovery steam generator, a steam turbine, condenser, transformer, cooling towers, tanks, sedimentation/evaporation ponds, auxiliary boilers, an emergency generator, an emergency fire pump, and associated buildings. Water for the facility's use, including cooling, would be provided by the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (Wellton-Mohawk) via the Wellton-Mohawk Canal. Associated with the facility would be a solar component that would convert solar energy to thermal energy for inlet air-cooling. Natural gas for the facility would be delivered via a new natural gas pipeline that would interconnect to a proposed or existing natural gas transmission line near U.S. Highway 95, northwest of the site. The proposed natural gas transmission pipeline would be subject to an independent EPA review as part of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing process. The facility's new natural gas pipeline would parallel the existing Wellton-Mohawk Canal right-of-way for its full length of 12 miles. The first phase of the Facility would interconnect at the Western Area Power Administration's (Western) Ligurta Substation. In response to Dome Valley's proposal, Western conducted a transmission system impact study and determined that upgrades and additions to the existing transmission system were needed to accommodate the facility. Western's proposed actions would include upgrading the existing Ligurta Substation, upgrading Western's existing 12.7-mile Ligurta to Gila transmission line, adding 75 megavolt-ampere transformer capacity between the 161-kilovolt (kV) side and the 69-kV side in Western's Gila Substation near Yuma, constructing a new 18-mile transmission line between the Ligurta Substation and Arizona Public Service's North Gila Substation north of Yuma, and interconnecting this line at the North Gila Substation. The new Ligurta to North Gila transmission line would parallel the existing Wellton-Mohawk Canal for most of its length. In addition, Western would require that primary and secondary communication systems be installed to ensure reliable operation of the transmission system. Portions of the transmission line upgrades and additions and a proposed natural gas pipeline for the Facility would cross lands managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Yuma Field Office (BLM). Since BLM would require rights-of- way grants for portions of the transmission line additions and new natural gas pipeline, BLM will participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS. The proposed Facility would be located on land currently owned by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). Title to this property would be transferred by BOR to Wellton- Mohawk. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two options with respect to the natural gas pipeline. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementing this proposal would incorporate a major new generation resource into Western's system. The delivery of power would be efficient and reliable within the service grid, benefiting mid-users and end-users of electric power. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facility site development would displace 119 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including desert shrubland. Approximately 20 50 30 acres of wind-blown sand deposits, providing suitable habitat for several special-status plant species would be lost. The gas turbines would release emissions of air pollutants, though residual emissions would be well within the applicable ambient air quality standards. Ambient noise in the vicinity of the facility would increase somewhat. The solitude and aesthetics of certain culturally significant sites would be degraded, and general aesthetics in the are, already marred by power lines and other power developments, would be further undermined. Approximately 1.756 million cubic feet of natural gas would be consumed during the 20-year operating life of the generation facility. 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 Wellton-Mowhawk Transfer Act of 2005 (P.L. 106-221) JF - EPA number: 050293, 489 pages, July 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0358 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Colorado KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Wellton-Mowhawk Transfer Act of 2005, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375085?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WELLTON-MOHAWK+GENERATING+FACILITY%2C+YUMA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WELLTON-MOHAWK+GENERATING+FACILITY%2C+YUMA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT, TRAVIS TYRRELL SEED ORCHARD, LORANE, LANE COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT, TRAVIS TYRRELL SEED ORCHARD, LORANE, LANE COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36378918; 050499F-050289_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an integrated pest management (IMP) program at the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Travis Tyrell Orchard in Lorane, Lane County, Oregon is proposed. The BLM orchard system has been implemented to provide for the production or seed and other vegetative materials used primarily for reforestation and a variety of other land management activities. The orchard suffers from competing and other unwanted vegetation, disease, and insect infestations. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), which would perpetuate the current management approach, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would manage pests using all identified biological, chemical, cultural methods as well as prescribed fire and other pest control methods, including aerial Esfenvalerate, Bacillus Thuringiensis, and fertilizer application by helicopter. Limitations, based on a recent human health risk assessment, scoping comments, and recommendations from a BLM interdisciplinary team, would placed on the use of chemicals to protect workers. The preferred alternative would be designed to minimize insect damage to orchard trees, cone crops, and native plants; remove noxious weeds and control vegetation that favors animal pests and disease conditions; reduce the growth of vegetation to allow tree establishment and growth; reduce fire hazard conditions; treat fungal disease to maintain the health and vigor of the orchard trees used for seed production; and minimize animal damage to orchard trees, native plant beds, and orchard equipment and infrastructure. The No Action Alternative would also use all pest control methods, but would not include all the chemical use limitations provided for under the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IMP program would manage the insect, weed, animal, and disease problems at the Tyrell orchard and maintain healthy, vigorous crop trees and other plants for appropriate uses at BLM sites elsewhere. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though worker protection measures would be in place, misuse of chemicals and accidental spills could result in impacts to human health. Under maximum application assumptions, chemicals use could affect fish and a special tadpole species, in onsite streams. IMP program implementation would also result in short-term degradation of localized air quality, temporary increases in fire hazard from waste material left on the ground after treatment, localized changes in terrestrial wildlife habitat, and localized lethal impacts to non-target insects 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 03-0438D, Volume 27, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050289, 345 pages, July 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-04/014+1792 KW - Air Quality KW - Biocontrol KW - Chemicals KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Herbicides KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Insects KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Pest Control KW - Pesticides KW - Plant Control KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378918?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTEGRATED+PEST+MANAGEMENT%2C+TRAVIS+TYRRELL+SEED+ORCHARD%2C+LORANE%2C+LANE+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTEGRATED+PEST+MANAGEMENT%2C+TRAVIS+TYRRELL+SEED+ORCHARD%2C+LORANE%2C+LANE+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Lorane, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT, TRAVIS TYRRELL SEED ORCHARD, LORANE, LANE COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 16358317; 11613 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an integrated pest management (IMP) program at the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Travis Tyrell Orchard in Lorane, Lane County, Oregon is proposed. The BLM orchard system has been implemented to provide for the production or seed and other vegetative materials used primarily for reforestation and a variety of other land management activities. The orchard suffers from competing and other unwanted vegetation, disease, and insect infestations. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), which would perpetuate the current management approach, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would manage pests using all identified biological, chemical, cultural methods as well as prescribed fire and other pest control methods, including aerial Esfenvalerate, Bacillus Thuringiensis, and fertilizer application by helicopter. Limitations, based on a recent human health risk assessment, scoping comments, and recommendations from a BLM interdisciplinary team, would placed on the use of chemicals to protect workers. The preferred alternative would be designed to minimize insect damage to orchard trees, cone crops, and native plants; remove noxious weeds and control vegetation that favors animal pests and disease conditions; reduce the growth of vegetation to allow tree establishment and growth; reduce fire hazard conditions; treat fungal disease to maintain the health and vigor of the orchard trees used for seed production; and minimize animal damage to orchard trees, native plant beds, and orchard equipment and infrastructure. The No Action Alternative would also use all pest control methods, but would not include all the chemical use limitations provided for under the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IMP program would manage the insect, weed, animal, and disease problems at the Tyrell orchard and maintain healthy, vigorous crop trees and other plants for appropriate uses at BLM sites elsewhere. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though worker protection measures would be in place, misuse of chemicals and accidental spills could result in impacts to human health. Under maximum application assumptions, chemicals use could affect fish and a special tadpole species, in onsite streams. IMP program implementation would also result in short-term degradation of localized air quality, temporary increases in fire hazard from waste material left on the ground after treatment, localized changes in terrestrial wildlife habitat, and localized lethal impacts to non-target insects 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 03-0438D, Volume 27, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050289, 345 pages, July 8, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-04/014+1792 KW - Air Quality KW - Biocontrol KW - Chemicals KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Herbicides KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Insects KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Pest Control KW - Pesticides KW - Plant Control KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16358317?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTEGRATED+PEST+MANAGEMENT%2C+TRAVIS+TYRRELL+SEED+ORCHARD%2C+LORANE%2C+LANE+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTEGRATED+PEST+MANAGEMENT%2C+TRAVIS+TYRRELL+SEED+ORCHARD%2C+LORANE%2C+LANE+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Lorane, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT: PROVOLT SEED ORCHARD, GRANTS PASS, JACKSON AND JOSEPHINE COUNTIES, OREGON; CHARLES A. SPRAGUE SEED ORCHARD, MERLIN, JOSEPHINE COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT: PROVOLT SEED ORCHARD, GRANTS PASS, JACKSON AND JOSEPHINE COUNTIES, OREGON; CHARLES A. SPRAGUE SEED ORCHARD, MERLIN, JOSEPHINE COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36372780; 050497F-050287_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an integrated pest management (IMP) program at the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Provolt Seed Orchard near Grants Pass, Jackson and Josephine counties, Oregon and Charles A. Sprague Orchard near Merlin, Josephine County, Oregon is proposed. The BLM orchard system has been implemented to provide for the production or seed and other vegetative materials used primarily for reforestation and a variety of other land management activities. The orchard suffers from competing and other unwanted vegetation, disease, and insect infestations. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), which would perpetuate the current management approach, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B), which is also the preferred alternative, would manage pests using all identified biological, chemical, cultural methods as well as prescribed fire and other pest control methods, including Bacillus Thuringiensis and fertilizer application by helicopter. Limitations, based on a recent human health risk assessment, scoping comments, and recommendations from a BLM interdisciplinary team, would placed on the use of chemicals to protect workers. The preferred alternative would be designed to minimize insect damage to orchard trees, cone crops, and native plants; remove noxious weeds and control vegetation that favors animal pests and disease conditions; reduce the growth of vegetation to allow tree establishment and growth; reduce fire hazard conditions; treat fungal disease to maintain the health and vigor of the orchard trees used for seed production; and minimize animal damage to orchard trees, native plant beds, and orchard equipment and infrastructure. The No Action Alternative would also use all pest control methods, but would not include all the chemical use limitations provided for under the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IMP program would manage the insect, weed, animal, and disease problems at the orchard sites and maintain healthy, vigorous crop trees and other plants for appropriate uses at BLM sites elsewhere. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though worker protection measures would be in place, misuse of chemicals and accidental spills could result in impacts to human health. Under maximum application assumptions, chemicals use could affect fish, including special status species, in onsite streams. IMP program implementation would also result in short-term degradation of localized air quality, temporary increases in fire hazard from waste material left on the ground after treatment, localized changes in terrestrial wildlife habitat, and localized lethal impacts to non-target insects 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 03-0439D, Volume 27, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050287, 572 pages, July 7, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-03/027+1792 KW - Air Quality KW - Biocontrol KW - Chemicals KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Herbicides KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Insects KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Pest Control KW - Pesticides KW - Plant Control KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372780?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTEGRATED+PEST+MANAGEMENT%3A+PROVOLT+SEED+ORCHARD%2C+GRANTS+PASS%2C+JACKSON+AND+JOSEPHINE+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON%3B+CHARLES+A.+SPRAGUE+SEED+ORCHARD%2C+MERLIN%2C+JOSEPHINE+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTEGRATED+PEST+MANAGEMENT%3A+PROVOLT+SEED+ORCHARD%2C+GRANTS+PASS%2C+JACKSON+AND+JOSEPHINE+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON%3B+CHARLES+A.+SPRAGUE+SEED+ORCHARD%2C+MERLIN%2C+JOSEPHINE+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Lorane, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT: PROVOLT SEED ORCHARD, GRANTS PASS, JACKSON AND JOSEPHINE COUNTIES, OREGON; CHARLES A. SPRAGUE SEED ORCHARD, MERLIN, JOSEPHINE COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 16347522; 11611 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an integrated pest management (IMP) program at the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Provolt Seed Orchard near Grants Pass, Jackson and Josephine counties, Oregon and Charles A. Sprague Orchard near Merlin, Josephine County, Oregon is proposed. The BLM orchard system has been implemented to provide for the production or seed and other vegetative materials used primarily for reforestation and a variety of other land management activities. The orchard suffers from competing and other unwanted vegetation, disease, and insect infestations. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), which would perpetuate the current management approach, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B), which is also the preferred alternative, would manage pests using all identified biological, chemical, cultural methods as well as prescribed fire and other pest control methods, including Bacillus Thuringiensis and fertilizer application by helicopter. Limitations, based on a recent human health risk assessment, scoping comments, and recommendations from a BLM interdisciplinary team, would placed on the use of chemicals to protect workers. The preferred alternative would be designed to minimize insect damage to orchard trees, cone crops, and native plants; remove noxious weeds and control vegetation that favors animal pests and disease conditions; reduce the growth of vegetation to allow tree establishment and growth; reduce fire hazard conditions; treat fungal disease to maintain the health and vigor of the orchard trees used for seed production; and minimize animal damage to orchard trees, native plant beds, and orchard equipment and infrastructure. The No Action Alternative would also use all pest control methods, but would not include all the chemical use limitations provided for under the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IMP program would manage the insect, weed, animal, and disease problems at the orchard sites and maintain healthy, vigorous crop trees and other plants for appropriate uses at BLM sites elsewhere. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though worker protection measures would be in place, misuse of chemicals and accidental spills could result in impacts to human health. Under maximum application assumptions, chemicals use could affect fish, including special status species, in onsite streams. IMP program implementation would also result in short-term degradation of localized air quality, temporary increases in fire hazard from waste material left on the ground after treatment, localized changes in terrestrial wildlife habitat, and localized lethal impacts to non-target insects 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 03-0439D, Volume 27, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050287, 572 pages, July 7, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-03/027+1792 KW - Air Quality KW - Biocontrol KW - Chemicals KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Herbicides KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Insects KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Pest Control KW - Pesticides KW - Plant Control KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16347522?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTEGRATED+PEST+MANAGEMENT%3A+PROVOLT+SEED+ORCHARD%2C+GRANTS+PASS%2C+JACKSON+AND+JOSEPHINE+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON%3B+CHARLES+A.+SPRAGUE+SEED+ORCHARD%2C+MERLIN%2C+JOSEPHINE+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTEGRATED+PEST+MANAGEMENT%3A+PROVOLT+SEED+ORCHARD%2C+GRANTS+PASS%2C+JACKSON+AND+JOSEPHINE+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON%3B+CHARLES+A.+SPRAGUE+SEED+ORCHARD%2C+MERLIN%2C+JOSEPHINE+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Lorane, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT: WALTER H. HORNING SEED ORCHARD, COLTON, CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36438742; 11612 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an integrated pest management (IMP) program at the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Walter H. Horning Seed Orchard in Clackamas County, Oregon is proposed. The BLM orchard system has been implemented to provide for the production or seed and other vegetative materials used primarily for reforestation and a variety of other land management activities. The orchard suffers from competing and other unwanted vegetation, disease, and insect infestations. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), which would perpetuate the current management approach, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would manage pests using all identified biological, chemical, cultural methods as well as prescribed fire and other pest control methods, including aerial Esfenvalerate, Bacillus Thuringiensis, aerial Esfenvalerate, and fertilizer application by helicopter. Limitations, based on a recent human health risk assessment, scoping comments, and recommendations from a BLM interdisciplinary team, would placed on the use of chemicals to protect workers. The preferred alternative would be designed to minimize insect damage to orchard trees, cone crops, and native plants; remove noxious weeds and control vegetation that favors animal pests and disease conditions; reduce the growth of vegetation to allow tree establishment and growth; reduce fire hazard conditions; treat fungal disease to maintain the health and vigor of the orchard trees used for seed production; and minimize animal damage to orchard trees, native plant beds, and orchard equipment and infrastructure. The No Action Alternative would also use all pest control methods, but would not include all the chemical use limitations provided for under the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IMP program would manage the insect, weed, animal, and disease problems at the Horning orchard and maintain healthy, vigorous crop trees and other plants for appropriate uses at BLM sites elsewhere. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though worker protection measures would be in place, misuse of chemicals and accidental spills could result in impacts to human health. Under maximum application assumptions, chemical use could affect fish, including special status species, in onsite streams. IMP program implementation would also result in short-term degradation of localized air quality, temporary increases in fire hazard from waste material left on the ground after treatment, localized changes in terrestrial wildlife habitat, and localized lethal impacts to non-target insects 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 03-0440D, Volume 27, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050288, 407 pages, July 5, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-04/015+1792 KW - Air Quality KW - Biocontrol KW - Chemicals KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Herbicides KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Insects KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Pest Control KW - Pesticides KW - Plant Control KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36438742?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTEGRATED+PEST+MANAGEMENT%3A+WALTER+H.+HORNING+SEED+ORCHARD%2C+COLTON%2C+CLACKAMAS+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTEGRATED+PEST+MANAGEMENT%3A+WALTER+H.+HORNING+SEED+ORCHARD%2C+COLTON%2C+CLACKAMAS+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Lorane, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 5, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT: WALTER H. HORNING SEED ORCHARD, COLTON, CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT: WALTER H. HORNING SEED ORCHARD, COLTON, CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36375222; 050498F-050288_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an integrated pest management (IMP) program at the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Walter H. Horning Seed Orchard in Clackamas County, Oregon is proposed. The BLM orchard system has been implemented to provide for the production or seed and other vegetative materials used primarily for reforestation and a variety of other land management activities. The orchard suffers from competing and other unwanted vegetation, disease, and insect infestations. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), which would perpetuate the current management approach, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would manage pests using all identified biological, chemical, cultural methods as well as prescribed fire and other pest control methods, including aerial Esfenvalerate, Bacillus Thuringiensis, aerial Esfenvalerate, and fertilizer application by helicopter. Limitations, based on a recent human health risk assessment, scoping comments, and recommendations from a BLM interdisciplinary team, would placed on the use of chemicals to protect workers. The preferred alternative would be designed to minimize insect damage to orchard trees, cone crops, and native plants; remove noxious weeds and control vegetation that favors animal pests and disease conditions; reduce the growth of vegetation to allow tree establishment and growth; reduce fire hazard conditions; treat fungal disease to maintain the health and vigor of the orchard trees used for seed production; and minimize animal damage to orchard trees, native plant beds, and orchard equipment and infrastructure. The No Action Alternative would also use all pest control methods, but would not include all the chemical use limitations provided for under the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IMP program would manage the insect, weed, animal, and disease problems at the Horning orchard and maintain healthy, vigorous crop trees and other plants for appropriate uses at BLM sites elsewhere. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though worker protection measures would be in place, misuse of chemicals and accidental spills could result in impacts to human health. Under maximum application assumptions, chemical use could affect fish, including special status species, in onsite streams. IMP program implementation would also result in short-term degradation of localized air quality, temporary increases in fire hazard from waste material left on the ground after treatment, localized changes in terrestrial wildlife habitat, and localized lethal impacts to non-target insects 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 03-0440D, Volume 27, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050288, 407 pages, July 5, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-04/015+1792 KW - Air Quality KW - Biocontrol KW - Chemicals KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Herbicides KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Insects KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Pest Control KW - Pesticides KW - Plant Control KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375222?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTEGRATED+PEST+MANAGEMENT%3A+WALTER+H.+HORNING+SEED+ORCHARD%2C+COLTON%2C+CLACKAMAS+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=INTEGRATED+PEST+MANAGEMENT%3A+WALTER+H.+HORNING+SEED+ORCHARD%2C+COLTON%2C+CLACKAMAS+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Lorane, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 5, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WILLIAMSON RIVER DELTA RESTORATION, KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36436712; 11596 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration program for the Williamson River Delta of Klamath County in south-central Oregon is proposed. The project area is located within the 10.5-million-acre Klamath River basin straddling the Oregon and California borders. The upper portion of the basin is known for a high degree of biological diversity. However, as a result of my road environmental stresses, seven species within the area are not federally listed as threatened or endangered or candidates for listing and over 100 species are classified as sensitive. Restoration of the Williamson River delta was identified by the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group as a critical project to achieve both ecosystem restoration and economic stability in the region. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 1) would involve breaching the levees along the Williamson River and the Upper Klamath and Agency lakes, and filling the associated to drains. Levee breeches would also occur along the Upper Klamath Lake on both Tulana and Goose bays. The preferred alternative would also include dredging of the historic oxbow on the Goose Bay side of the delta to allow constant, year-round flow. Riparian fringe and wetland would be developed along the Williamson River and riprap would be graded and removed from the remaining lakeshore levees. Upland habitat restoration and ongoing weed control activities would be implemented, along with turbidity and erosion control measures. The plan would adopt an adaptive management approach, allowing for ad hoc adjustments as conditions in the delta change. A monitoring program would be incorporated into all phases of the project. The plan would be implemented over six years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Ecosystem restoration activities would re-establish and maintain the natural ecological functions of the delta, increasing habitats essential to federally protected fish species. The project would provide a significant opportunity to improve habitat for two endangered fish species, the Lost River and shortnose suckers, through wetland and riverine restoration at the mouth of the river, the largest tributary of Upper Klamath Lake. Approximately 3,000 acres of additional wetland habitat and 1,000 acres of aquatic would be created. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require 1.25 million cubic yards of combined cut and fill, all of which would remain on-site. Farmland would be converted to wetland and upland habitat; the associated agricultural leases would not be renewed. Some archaeologically significant sites would be inundated and wave action could disturb other sites. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0268D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050272, 259 pages and maps, June 25, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Control KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Oregon KW - Upper Klamath Lake KW - Williamson River UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436712?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WILLIAMSON+RIVER+DELTA+RESTORATION%2C+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WILLIAMSON+RIVER+DELTA+RESTORATION%2C+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Portland, Oregon; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WILLIAMSON RIVER DELTA RESTORATION, KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - WILLIAMSON RIVER DELTA RESTORATION, KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36374561; 050576F-050272_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration program for the Williamson River Delta of Klamath County in south-central Oregon is proposed. The project area is located within the 10.5-million-acre Klamath River basin straddling the Oregon and California borders. The upper portion of the basin is known for a high degree of biological diversity. However, as a result of my road environmental stresses, seven species within the area are not federally listed as threatened or endangered or candidates for listing and over 100 species are classified as sensitive. Restoration of the Williamson River delta was identified by the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group as a critical project to achieve both ecosystem restoration and economic stability in the region. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 1) would involve breaching the levees along the Williamson River and the Upper Klamath and Agency lakes, and filling the associated to drains. Levee breeches would also occur along the Upper Klamath Lake on both Tulana and Goose bays. The preferred alternative would also include dredging of the historic oxbow on the Goose Bay side of the delta to allow constant, year-round flow. Riparian fringe and wetland would be developed along the Williamson River and riprap would be graded and removed from the remaining lakeshore levees. Upland habitat restoration and ongoing weed control activities would be implemented, along with turbidity and erosion control measures. The plan would adopt an adaptive management approach, allowing for ad hoc adjustments as conditions in the delta change. A monitoring program would be incorporated into all phases of the project. The plan would be implemented over six years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Ecosystem restoration activities would re-establish and maintain the natural ecological functions of the delta, increasing habitats essential to federally protected fish species. The project would provide a significant opportunity to improve habitat for two endangered fish species, the Lost River and shortnose suckers, through wetland and riverine restoration at the mouth of the river, the largest tributary of Upper Klamath Lake. Approximately 3,000 acres of additional wetland habitat and 1,000 acres of aquatic would be created. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require 1.25 million cubic yards of combined cut and fill, all of which would remain on-site. Farmland would be converted to wetland and upland habitat; the associated agricultural leases would not be renewed. Some archaeologically significant sites would be inundated and wave action could disturb other sites. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0268D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050272, 259 pages and maps, June 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Control KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Oregon KW - Upper Klamath Lake KW - Williamson River UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374561?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WILLIAMSON+RIVER+DELTA+RESTORATION%2C+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WILLIAMSON+RIVER+DELTA+RESTORATION%2C+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Portland, Oregon; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POWER FIRE RESTORATION, AMADOR RANGER DISTRICT, ELDORADO NATIONAL FOREST, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36437051; 11589 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan in the Power Fire Area of the Amador Ranger District, Eldorado National Forest, Amador County, California is proposed. The proposed action would involve the removal of fire-killed trees, road reconstruction, and associated restoration of the area burned by the Power Fire of 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the use of the Pacific Southwest Regional Forest health Restoration Staffs mortality guidelines as a means of evaluating unacceptable risk of cutting trees that would have survived their fire injuries; the impacts of ground-based and skyline logging on soil and downstream water quality; the retention of four to six of the largest snags per acre and all snags in some riparian areas, resulting in the potential for excessive fuel loading and thereby contributing to an unacceptable safety hazard for recreationists and a loss of economic value; and the retention of snags to provide enough suitable habitat for black-backed woodpeckers, hairy woodpeckers, and other birds that are associated with burned forests. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would remove hazard trees, fire-killed trees, and fuel treatment to contribute to the restoration of old-forest conditions. Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative, except that mortality guidelines would not be used to harvest dying trees and the emphasis of the alternative would be on minimizing the risk of harvest trees that would otherwise survive their injuries. Alternative 4 would involve removal of fire-killed trees, fuel treatment, and removal of hazard trees, emphasizing the enhancement of habitat for cavity nesting birds by leaving snags in patches of carying sizes while reducing fuels over the long-term. Alternative 5 would be similarly to Alternative 2, except that helicopter logging methods would be implemented rather than tractor and skyline methods; the emphasis of this alternative would be to reduce ground disturbance associated with ground-based and skyline logging methods. The plan would generate 104.2 million board-feet of saw timber and leave 64.1 million board-feet in situ and result in a present net value of $11.9 million. 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 draft EIS. 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 n 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 twp 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 proposed action would reduce long-term fuel loading and reduce the potential long-term impacts of soil compaction. Road improvements would reduce chronic sources of sedimentation, and new slash over on hill slopes could further decrease sediment loads to streams. Snag retention would provide recruitment of large in-stream woody debris. The most hydrologically sensitive areas and steep slopes would be protect through equipment exclusion zones or the us of aerial logging systems. All stable owl habitat would be protected. 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: In areas where six snags per acre are retained, fuel levels by year 25 would still be high enough to seriously impede fire suppression and contribute to severe soil heating. Fire hazard and resistance to control would increase over time under all alternatives as trees that were retained eventually fell. Much of the project area would be unsafe for effective firefighting. The removal of dead trees and associated effects to snag-dependent species. Smoke from pile burning and dust and exhaust from heavy equipment, helicopters, and trucks would degrade air quality during plan implementation. Some soil compaction could occur in tractor-harvested units. 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: 050263, 542 pages and maps, June 24, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys 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 - California KW - Eldorado National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Minidoka Internment National Monument KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance 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/36437051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POWER+FIRE+RESTORATION%2C+AMADOR+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+ELDORADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=POWER+FIRE+RESTORATION%2C+AMADOR+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+ELDORADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Placerville, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POWER FIRE RESTORATION, AMADOR RANGER DISTRICT, ELDORADO NATIONAL FOREST, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - POWER FIRE RESTORATION, AMADOR RANGER DISTRICT, ELDORADO NATIONAL FOREST, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36372562; 050573D-050263_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan in the Power Fire Area of the Amador Ranger District, Eldorado National Forest, Amador County, California is proposed. The proposed action would involve the removal of fire-killed trees, road reconstruction, and associated restoration of the area burned by the Power Fire of 2004. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the use of the Pacific Southwest Regional Forest health Restoration Staffs mortality guidelines as a means of evaluating unacceptable risk of cutting trees that would have survived their fire injuries; the impacts of ground-based and skyline logging on soil and downstream water quality; the retention of four to six of the largest snags per acre and all snags in some riparian areas, resulting in the potential for excessive fuel loading and thereby contributing to an unacceptable safety hazard for recreationists and a loss of economic value; and the retention of snags to provide enough suitable habitat for black-backed woodpeckers, hairy woodpeckers, and other birds that are associated with burned forests. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would remove hazard trees, fire-killed trees, and fuel treatment to contribute to the restoration of old-forest conditions. Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative, except that mortality guidelines would not be used to harvest dying trees and the emphasis of the alternative would be on minimizing the risk of harvest trees that would otherwise survive their injuries. Alternative 4 would involve removal of fire-killed trees, fuel treatment, and removal of hazard trees, emphasizing the enhancement of habitat for cavity nesting birds by leaving snags in patches of carying sizes while reducing fuels over the long-term. Alternative 5 would be similarly to Alternative 2, except that helicopter logging methods would be implemented rather than tractor and skyline methods; the emphasis of this alternative would be to reduce ground disturbance associated with ground-based and skyline logging methods. The plan would generate 104.2 million board-feet of saw timber and leave 64.1 million board-feet in situ and result in a present net value of $11.9 million. 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 draft EIS. 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 n 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 twp 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 proposed action would reduce long-term fuel loading and reduce the potential long-term impacts of soil compaction. Road improvements would reduce chronic sources of sedimentation, and new slash over on hill slopes could further decrease sediment loads to streams. Snag retention would provide recruitment of large in-stream woody debris. The most hydrologically sensitive areas and steep slopes would be protect through equipment exclusion zones or the us of aerial logging systems. All stable owl habitat would be protected. 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: In areas where six snags per acre are retained, fuel levels by year 25 would still be high enough to seriously impede fire suppression and contribute to severe soil heating. Fire hazard and resistance to control would increase over time under all alternatives as trees that were retained eventually fell. Much of the project area would be unsafe for effective firefighting. The removal of dead trees and associated effects to snag-dependent species. Smoke from pile burning and dust and exhaust from heavy equipment, helicopters, and trucks would degrade air quality during plan implementation. Some soil compaction could occur in tractor-harvested units. 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: 050263, 542 pages and maps, June 24, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys 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 - California KW - Eldorado National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Minidoka Internment National Monument KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance 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/36372562?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POWER+FIRE+RESTORATION%2C+AMADOR+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+ELDORADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=POWER+FIRE+RESTORATION%2C+AMADOR+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+ELDORADO+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Placerville, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 24, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. AN - 36439318; 11588 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of and 0.7-mile Klingle Road for vehicular and recreational uses within city rights-of-way in the District of Columbia is proposed. The project corridor extends from Porter Street, Northwest, on the east, to Cortland Place, NW, on the west. The improvement would include a crossing of Rock Creek and Rock Creek Park, which is under the administrative control of the National Park Service. The project is intended to address structural and environmental damage caused by flooding along Rock Creek and to accommodate storm water flows and implement other drainage improvements along Klingle Creek within the project corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative C) would involve the reconstruction of Klingle Road to its original 22-foot-wide alignment, providing two travel lanes, each measuring 10 feet in width and the roadway would flanked by flanked by one-foot clearance zones to accommodate curb-and-gutter sections. Storm water management would involve provision of conduits under Klingle Road to contain existing piped flow and allow existing overland flow in Klingle Creek. Retaining walls would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstruction of Klingle Road would re-link the roadway with a previously existing collector route, which extends from Beach Drive at Rock Creek Parkway to Wisconsin Avenue via Woodley Road prior to 1991. Ongoing road and environmental damage caused by storm water flows would be ameliorated. Pedestrians and recreation-oriented users would be provided access o Klingle Road with the use of motor vehicles. Visual aesthetics in the area would improve. Erosion control measures would be provided. Uncontrolled runoff would cease damaging vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat and cease threatening possible archaeological resource sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parkland would be displaced, and two acres of impervious surface would remain after project completion. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase significantly along the corridor, and noise experienced by one sensitive receptor would exceed federal standards. A short segment of Rock Creek would be altered, and the project would affect 2.28 acres of the park, though this area is in poor condition and would be enhanced by the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050262, Draft EIS--212 pages and maps; Appendices--191 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36439318?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&rft.title=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, CHIRICAHUA NATIONAL MONUMENT, ARIZONA. AN - 36437627; 11590 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for the Chiricahua National Monument, Arizona is proposed. Most of the 11,985-acre monument has been designated as wilderness. Tree ring studies demonstrate that that widespread fires were once frequent events in the Chiricahua Mountains; the fire season takes place annually with the onset of the summer monsoon season and accompanying lightning. Fire suppression during the last century seems to have altered plant communities, and the changes in the structure and composition of vegetation communities probably affected wildlife. Fuels have accumulated in the absence of fire, increasing the risk of wild land fires that could cause extensive damage. Some fire management began in the monument in the 1970s, but these efforts have been limited. Objectives identified during scoping include those related to the human health and safety; the qualifications of fire control personnel; the reduction of fuels that could adversely affect park developments, cultural resources, and ecologically sensitive areas; designation of a resource advisor to an fire with the potential to adversely affect sensitive resources; minimization of unacceptable impacts of wild land fire suppression on natural and cultural resources through burned area rehabilitation where appropriate; and the development of burn prescriptions and objectives to minimize unacceptable impacts of prescribed fire on natural and cultural resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Action Alternative would allow wild land fire use only in a small fire management unit in the center of the park. Alternative A would allow wild land fire use throughout the park backcountry areas and call for automatic suppression only in a canyon-bottom corridor that contains almost all park developments and burnable historic structures. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would push the boundaries of the management area out to natural watershed limits at the Coronado National Forest boundary on the north, east, and south sides. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, the Coronado National Forest would act as an active partner, and the monument's prescribed burn complexes cover ZOC on national forest land. Wild land fire use would also be permitted out to zone boundaries. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new FMP would incorporate recent policies and advances in fire research and operations. Allowing low- to moderate-intensity fire to burn over more areas could reduce the risk of large-scale, high-intensity fires to a greater degree than the other alternatives. Expanding the burnable area and the flexibility of burn conditions would move resources to more routine fire events rather than forcing the investment at resources in high cost suppression of widespread, high-intensity fires. Over the long-term, the FMP would reduce fire risk, assist the reproduction of fire-tolerant plant species, and renew habitats. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: the FMP would result in some short-term, minor adverse impacts, such as inconvenience to visitors, discouragement of tourism, disturbance of cultural resources, the loss of individual plants and animals and their habitat, changes to the character of unique sites and wilderness, increases in erosion, and degradation of air quality. 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 05-0324D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050265, 201 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Safety KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Chiricahua National Monument KW - Coronado National Forest 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/36437627?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CHIRICAHUA+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CHIRICAHUA+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Willcox, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. [Part 19 of 19] T2 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. AN - 36384591; 050651D-050262_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of and 0.7-mile Klingle Road for vehicular and recreational uses within city rights-of-way in the District of Columbia is proposed. The project corridor extends from Porter Street, Northwest, on the east, to Cortland Place, NW, on the west. The improvement would include a crossing of Rock Creek and Rock Creek Park, which is under the administrative control of the National Park Service. The project is intended to address structural and environmental damage caused by flooding along Rock Creek and to accommodate storm water flows and implement other drainage improvements along Klingle Creek within the project corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative C) would involve the reconstruction of Klingle Road to its original 22-foot-wide alignment, providing two travel lanes, each measuring 10 feet in width and the roadway would flanked by flanked by one-foot clearance zones to accommodate curb-and-gutter sections. Storm water management would involve provision of conduits under Klingle Road to contain existing piped flow and allow existing overland flow in Klingle Creek. Retaining walls would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstruction of Klingle Road would re-link the roadway with a previously existing collector route, which extends from Beach Drive at Rock Creek Parkway to Wisconsin Avenue via Woodley Road prior to 1991. Ongoing road and environmental damage caused by storm water flows would be ameliorated. Pedestrians and recreation-oriented users would be provided access o Klingle Road with the use of motor vehicles. Visual aesthetics in the area would improve. Erosion control measures would be provided. Uncontrolled runoff would cease damaging vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat and cease threatening possible archaeological resource sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parkland would be displaced, and two acres of impervious surface would remain after project completion. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase significantly along the corridor, and noise experienced by one sensitive receptor would exceed federal standards. A short segment of Rock Creek would be altered, and the project would affect 2.28 acres of the park, though this area is in poor condition and would be enhanced by the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050262, Draft EIS--212 pages and maps; Appendices--191 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384591?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&rft.title=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. [Part 7 of 19] T2 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. AN - 36383195; 050651D-050262_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of and 0.7-mile Klingle Road for vehicular and recreational uses within city rights-of-way in the District of Columbia is proposed. The project corridor extends from Porter Street, Northwest, on the east, to Cortland Place, NW, on the west. The improvement would include a crossing of Rock Creek and Rock Creek Park, which is under the administrative control of the National Park Service. The project is intended to address structural and environmental damage caused by flooding along Rock Creek and to accommodate storm water flows and implement other drainage improvements along Klingle Creek within the project corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative C) would involve the reconstruction of Klingle Road to its original 22-foot-wide alignment, providing two travel lanes, each measuring 10 feet in width and the roadway would flanked by flanked by one-foot clearance zones to accommodate curb-and-gutter sections. Storm water management would involve provision of conduits under Klingle Road to contain existing piped flow and allow existing overland flow in Klingle Creek. Retaining walls would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstruction of Klingle Road would re-link the roadway with a previously existing collector route, which extends from Beach Drive at Rock Creek Parkway to Wisconsin Avenue via Woodley Road prior to 1991. Ongoing road and environmental damage caused by storm water flows would be ameliorated. Pedestrians and recreation-oriented users would be provided access o Klingle Road with the use of motor vehicles. Visual aesthetics in the area would improve. Erosion control measures would be provided. Uncontrolled runoff would cease damaging vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat and cease threatening possible archaeological resource sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parkland would be displaced, and two acres of impervious surface would remain after project completion. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase significantly along the corridor, and noise experienced by one sensitive receptor would exceed federal standards. A short segment of Rock Creek would be altered, and the project would affect 2.28 acres of the park, though this area is in poor condition and would be enhanced by the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050262, Draft EIS--212 pages and maps; Appendices--191 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383195?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&rft.title=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. [Part 13 of 19] T2 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. AN - 36379119; 050651D-050262_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of and 0.7-mile Klingle Road for vehicular and recreational uses within city rights-of-way in the District of Columbia is proposed. The project corridor extends from Porter Street, Northwest, on the east, to Cortland Place, NW, on the west. The improvement would include a crossing of Rock Creek and Rock Creek Park, which is under the administrative control of the National Park Service. The project is intended to address structural and environmental damage caused by flooding along Rock Creek and to accommodate storm water flows and implement other drainage improvements along Klingle Creek within the project corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative C) would involve the reconstruction of Klingle Road to its original 22-foot-wide alignment, providing two travel lanes, each measuring 10 feet in width and the roadway would flanked by flanked by one-foot clearance zones to accommodate curb-and-gutter sections. Storm water management would involve provision of conduits under Klingle Road to contain existing piped flow and allow existing overland flow in Klingle Creek. Retaining walls would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstruction of Klingle Road would re-link the roadway with a previously existing collector route, which extends from Beach Drive at Rock Creek Parkway to Wisconsin Avenue via Woodley Road prior to 1991. Ongoing road and environmental damage caused by storm water flows would be ameliorated. Pedestrians and recreation-oriented users would be provided access o Klingle Road with the use of motor vehicles. Visual aesthetics in the area would improve. Erosion control measures would be provided. Uncontrolled runoff would cease damaging vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat and cease threatening possible archaeological resource sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parkland would be displaced, and two acres of impervious surface would remain after project completion. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase significantly along the corridor, and noise experienced by one sensitive receptor would exceed federal standards. A short segment of Rock Creek would be altered, and the project would affect 2.28 acres of the park, though this area is in poor condition and would be enhanced by the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050262, Draft EIS--212 pages and maps; Appendices--191 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&rft.title=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. [Part 6 of 19] T2 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. AN - 36378706; 050651D-050262_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of and 0.7-mile Klingle Road for vehicular and recreational uses within city rights-of-way in the District of Columbia is proposed. The project corridor extends from Porter Street, Northwest, on the east, to Cortland Place, NW, on the west. The improvement would include a crossing of Rock Creek and Rock Creek Park, which is under the administrative control of the National Park Service. The project is intended to address structural and environmental damage caused by flooding along Rock Creek and to accommodate storm water flows and implement other drainage improvements along Klingle Creek within the project corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative C) would involve the reconstruction of Klingle Road to its original 22-foot-wide alignment, providing two travel lanes, each measuring 10 feet in width and the roadway would flanked by flanked by one-foot clearance zones to accommodate curb-and-gutter sections. Storm water management would involve provision of conduits under Klingle Road to contain existing piped flow and allow existing overland flow in Klingle Creek. Retaining walls would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstruction of Klingle Road would re-link the roadway with a previously existing collector route, which extends from Beach Drive at Rock Creek Parkway to Wisconsin Avenue via Woodley Road prior to 1991. Ongoing road and environmental damage caused by storm water flows would be ameliorated. Pedestrians and recreation-oriented users would be provided access o Klingle Road with the use of motor vehicles. Visual aesthetics in the area would improve. Erosion control measures would be provided. Uncontrolled runoff would cease damaging vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat and cease threatening possible archaeological resource sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parkland would be displaced, and two acres of impervious surface would remain after project completion. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase significantly along the corridor, and noise experienced by one sensitive receptor would exceed federal standards. A short segment of Rock Creek would be altered, and the project would affect 2.28 acres of the park, though this area is in poor condition and would be enhanced by the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050262, Draft EIS--212 pages and maps; Appendices--191 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378706?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&rft.title=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. [Part 4 of 19] T2 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. AN - 36378646; 050651D-050262_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of and 0.7-mile Klingle Road for vehicular and recreational uses within city rights-of-way in the District of Columbia is proposed. The project corridor extends from Porter Street, Northwest, on the east, to Cortland Place, NW, on the west. The improvement would include a crossing of Rock Creek and Rock Creek Park, which is under the administrative control of the National Park Service. The project is intended to address structural and environmental damage caused by flooding along Rock Creek and to accommodate storm water flows and implement other drainage improvements along Klingle Creek within the project corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative C) would involve the reconstruction of Klingle Road to its original 22-foot-wide alignment, providing two travel lanes, each measuring 10 feet in width and the roadway would flanked by flanked by one-foot clearance zones to accommodate curb-and-gutter sections. Storm water management would involve provision of conduits under Klingle Road to contain existing piped flow and allow existing overland flow in Klingle Creek. Retaining walls would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstruction of Klingle Road would re-link the roadway with a previously existing collector route, which extends from Beach Drive at Rock Creek Parkway to Wisconsin Avenue via Woodley Road prior to 1991. Ongoing road and environmental damage caused by storm water flows would be ameliorated. Pedestrians and recreation-oriented users would be provided access o Klingle Road with the use of motor vehicles. Visual aesthetics in the area would improve. Erosion control measures would be provided. Uncontrolled runoff would cease damaging vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat and cease threatening possible archaeological resource sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parkland would be displaced, and two acres of impervious surface would remain after project completion. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase significantly along the corridor, and noise experienced by one sensitive receptor would exceed federal standards. A short segment of Rock Creek would be altered, and the project would affect 2.28 acres of the park, though this area is in poor condition and would be enhanced by the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050262, Draft EIS--212 pages and maps; Appendices--191 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378646?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&rft.title=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. [Part 1 of 19] T2 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. AN - 36378446; 050651D-050262_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of and 0.7-mile Klingle Road for vehicular and recreational uses within city rights-of-way in the District of Columbia is proposed. The project corridor extends from Porter Street, Northwest, on the east, to Cortland Place, NW, on the west. The improvement would include a crossing of Rock Creek and Rock Creek Park, which is under the administrative control of the National Park Service. The project is intended to address structural and environmental damage caused by flooding along Rock Creek and to accommodate storm water flows and implement other drainage improvements along Klingle Creek within the project corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative C) would involve the reconstruction of Klingle Road to its original 22-foot-wide alignment, providing two travel lanes, each measuring 10 feet in width and the roadway would flanked by flanked by one-foot clearance zones to accommodate curb-and-gutter sections. Storm water management would involve provision of conduits under Klingle Road to contain existing piped flow and allow existing overland flow in Klingle Creek. Retaining walls would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstruction of Klingle Road would re-link the roadway with a previously existing collector route, which extends from Beach Drive at Rock Creek Parkway to Wisconsin Avenue via Woodley Road prior to 1991. Ongoing road and environmental damage caused by storm water flows would be ameliorated. Pedestrians and recreation-oriented users would be provided access o Klingle Road with the use of motor vehicles. Visual aesthetics in the area would improve. Erosion control measures would be provided. Uncontrolled runoff would cease damaging vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat and cease threatening possible archaeological resource sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parkland would be displaced, and two acres of impervious surface would remain after project completion. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase significantly along the corridor, and noise experienced by one sensitive receptor would exceed federal standards. A short segment of Rock Creek would be altered, and the project would affect 2.28 acres of the park, though this area is in poor condition and would be enhanced by the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050262, Draft EIS--212 pages and maps; Appendices--191 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378446?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&rft.title=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. [Part 15 of 19] T2 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. AN - 36378066; 050651D-050262_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of and 0.7-mile Klingle Road for vehicular and recreational uses within city rights-of-way in the District of Columbia is proposed. The project corridor extends from Porter Street, Northwest, on the east, to Cortland Place, NW, on the west. The improvement would include a crossing of Rock Creek and Rock Creek Park, which is under the administrative control of the National Park Service. The project is intended to address structural and environmental damage caused by flooding along Rock Creek and to accommodate storm water flows and implement other drainage improvements along Klingle Creek within the project corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative C) would involve the reconstruction of Klingle Road to its original 22-foot-wide alignment, providing two travel lanes, each measuring 10 feet in width and the roadway would flanked by flanked by one-foot clearance zones to accommodate curb-and-gutter sections. Storm water management would involve provision of conduits under Klingle Road to contain existing piped flow and allow existing overland flow in Klingle Creek. Retaining walls would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstruction of Klingle Road would re-link the roadway with a previously existing collector route, which extends from Beach Drive at Rock Creek Parkway to Wisconsin Avenue via Woodley Road prior to 1991. Ongoing road and environmental damage caused by storm water flows would be ameliorated. Pedestrians and recreation-oriented users would be provided access o Klingle Road with the use of motor vehicles. Visual aesthetics in the area would improve. Erosion control measures would be provided. Uncontrolled runoff would cease damaging vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat and cease threatening possible archaeological resource sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parkland would be displaced, and two acres of impervious surface would remain after project completion. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase significantly along the corridor, and noise experienced by one sensitive receptor would exceed federal standards. A short segment of Rock Creek would be altered, and the project would affect 2.28 acres of the park, though this area is in poor condition and would be enhanced by the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050262, Draft EIS--212 pages and maps; Appendices--191 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378066?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&rft.title=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. [Part 16 of 19] T2 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. AN - 36375404; 050651D-050262_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of and 0.7-mile Klingle Road for vehicular and recreational uses within city rights-of-way in the District of Columbia is proposed. The project corridor extends from Porter Street, Northwest, on the east, to Cortland Place, NW, on the west. The improvement would include a crossing of Rock Creek and Rock Creek Park, which is under the administrative control of the National Park Service. The project is intended to address structural and environmental damage caused by flooding along Rock Creek and to accommodate storm water flows and implement other drainage improvements along Klingle Creek within the project corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative C) would involve the reconstruction of Klingle Road to its original 22-foot-wide alignment, providing two travel lanes, each measuring 10 feet in width and the roadway would flanked by flanked by one-foot clearance zones to accommodate curb-and-gutter sections. Storm water management would involve provision of conduits under Klingle Road to contain existing piped flow and allow existing overland flow in Klingle Creek. Retaining walls would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstruction of Klingle Road would re-link the roadway with a previously existing collector route, which extends from Beach Drive at Rock Creek Parkway to Wisconsin Avenue via Woodley Road prior to 1991. Ongoing road and environmental damage caused by storm water flows would be ameliorated. Pedestrians and recreation-oriented users would be provided access o Klingle Road with the use of motor vehicles. Visual aesthetics in the area would improve. Erosion control measures would be provided. Uncontrolled runoff would cease damaging vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat and cease threatening possible archaeological resource sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parkland would be displaced, and two acres of impervious surface would remain after project completion. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase significantly along the corridor, and noise experienced by one sensitive receptor would exceed federal standards. A short segment of Rock Creek would be altered, and the project would affect 2.28 acres of the park, though this area is in poor condition and would be enhanced by the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050262, Draft EIS--212 pages and maps; Appendices--191 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375404?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&rft.title=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. [Part 12 of 19] T2 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. AN - 36375337; 050651D-050262_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of and 0.7-mile Klingle Road for vehicular and recreational uses within city rights-of-way in the District of Columbia is proposed. The project corridor extends from Porter Street, Northwest, on the east, to Cortland Place, NW, on the west. The improvement would include a crossing of Rock Creek and Rock Creek Park, which is under the administrative control of the National Park Service. The project is intended to address structural and environmental damage caused by flooding along Rock Creek and to accommodate storm water flows and implement other drainage improvements along Klingle Creek within the project corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative C) would involve the reconstruction of Klingle Road to its original 22-foot-wide alignment, providing two travel lanes, each measuring 10 feet in width and the roadway would flanked by flanked by one-foot clearance zones to accommodate curb-and-gutter sections. Storm water management would involve provision of conduits under Klingle Road to contain existing piped flow and allow existing overland flow in Klingle Creek. Retaining walls would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstruction of Klingle Road would re-link the roadway with a previously existing collector route, which extends from Beach Drive at Rock Creek Parkway to Wisconsin Avenue via Woodley Road prior to 1991. Ongoing road and environmental damage caused by storm water flows would be ameliorated. Pedestrians and recreation-oriented users would be provided access o Klingle Road with the use of motor vehicles. Visual aesthetics in the area would improve. Erosion control measures would be provided. Uncontrolled runoff would cease damaging vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat and cease threatening possible archaeological resource sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parkland would be displaced, and two acres of impervious surface would remain after project completion. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase significantly along the corridor, and noise experienced by one sensitive receptor would exceed federal standards. A short segment of Rock Creek would be altered, and the project would affect 2.28 acres of the park, though this area is in poor condition and would be enhanced by the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050262, Draft EIS--212 pages and maps; Appendices--191 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375337?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&rft.title=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. [Part 10 of 19] T2 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. AN - 36375187; 050651D-050262_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of and 0.7-mile Klingle Road for vehicular and recreational uses within city rights-of-way in the District of Columbia is proposed. The project corridor extends from Porter Street, Northwest, on the east, to Cortland Place, NW, on the west. The improvement would include a crossing of Rock Creek and Rock Creek Park, which is under the administrative control of the National Park Service. The project is intended to address structural and environmental damage caused by flooding along Rock Creek and to accommodate storm water flows and implement other drainage improvements along Klingle Creek within the project corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative C) would involve the reconstruction of Klingle Road to its original 22-foot-wide alignment, providing two travel lanes, each measuring 10 feet in width and the roadway would flanked by flanked by one-foot clearance zones to accommodate curb-and-gutter sections. Storm water management would involve provision of conduits under Klingle Road to contain existing piped flow and allow existing overland flow in Klingle Creek. Retaining walls would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstruction of Klingle Road would re-link the roadway with a previously existing collector route, which extends from Beach Drive at Rock Creek Parkway to Wisconsin Avenue via Woodley Road prior to 1991. Ongoing road and environmental damage caused by storm water flows would be ameliorated. Pedestrians and recreation-oriented users would be provided access o Klingle Road with the use of motor vehicles. Visual aesthetics in the area would improve. Erosion control measures would be provided. Uncontrolled runoff would cease damaging vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat and cease threatening possible archaeological resource sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parkland would be displaced, and two acres of impervious surface would remain after project completion. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase significantly along the corridor, and noise experienced by one sensitive receptor would exceed federal standards. A short segment of Rock Creek would be altered, and the project would affect 2.28 acres of the park, though this area is in poor condition and would be enhanced by the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050262, Draft EIS--212 pages and maps; Appendices--191 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375187?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&rft.title=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. [Part 5 of 19] T2 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. AN - 36375126; 050651D-050262_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of and 0.7-mile Klingle Road for vehicular and recreational uses within city rights-of-way in the District of Columbia is proposed. The project corridor extends from Porter Street, Northwest, on the east, to Cortland Place, NW, on the west. The improvement would include a crossing of Rock Creek and Rock Creek Park, which is under the administrative control of the National Park Service. The project is intended to address structural and environmental damage caused by flooding along Rock Creek and to accommodate storm water flows and implement other drainage improvements along Klingle Creek within the project corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative C) would involve the reconstruction of Klingle Road to its original 22-foot-wide alignment, providing two travel lanes, each measuring 10 feet in width and the roadway would flanked by flanked by one-foot clearance zones to accommodate curb-and-gutter sections. Storm water management would involve provision of conduits under Klingle Road to contain existing piped flow and allow existing overland flow in Klingle Creek. Retaining walls would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstruction of Klingle Road would re-link the roadway with a previously existing collector route, which extends from Beach Drive at Rock Creek Parkway to Wisconsin Avenue via Woodley Road prior to 1991. Ongoing road and environmental damage caused by storm water flows would be ameliorated. Pedestrians and recreation-oriented users would be provided access o Klingle Road with the use of motor vehicles. Visual aesthetics in the area would improve. Erosion control measures would be provided. Uncontrolled runoff would cease damaging vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat and cease threatening possible archaeological resource sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parkland would be displaced, and two acres of impervious surface would remain after project completion. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase significantly along the corridor, and noise experienced by one sensitive receptor would exceed federal standards. A short segment of Rock Creek would be altered, and the project would affect 2.28 acres of the park, though this area is in poor condition and would be enhanced by the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050262, Draft EIS--212 pages and maps; Appendices--191 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375126?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&rft.title=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. [Part 8 of 19] T2 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. AN - 36375022; 050651D-050262_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of and 0.7-mile Klingle Road for vehicular and recreational uses within city rights-of-way in the District of Columbia is proposed. The project corridor extends from Porter Street, Northwest, on the east, to Cortland Place, NW, on the west. The improvement would include a crossing of Rock Creek and Rock Creek Park, which is under the administrative control of the National Park Service. The project is intended to address structural and environmental damage caused by flooding along Rock Creek and to accommodate storm water flows and implement other drainage improvements along Klingle Creek within the project corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative C) would involve the reconstruction of Klingle Road to its original 22-foot-wide alignment, providing two travel lanes, each measuring 10 feet in width and the roadway would flanked by flanked by one-foot clearance zones to accommodate curb-and-gutter sections. Storm water management would involve provision of conduits under Klingle Road to contain existing piped flow and allow existing overland flow in Klingle Creek. Retaining walls would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstruction of Klingle Road would re-link the roadway with a previously existing collector route, which extends from Beach Drive at Rock Creek Parkway to Wisconsin Avenue via Woodley Road prior to 1991. Ongoing road and environmental damage caused by storm water flows would be ameliorated. Pedestrians and recreation-oriented users would be provided access o Klingle Road with the use of motor vehicles. Visual aesthetics in the area would improve. Erosion control measures would be provided. Uncontrolled runoff would cease damaging vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat and cease threatening possible archaeological resource sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parkland would be displaced, and two acres of impervious surface would remain after project completion. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase significantly along the corridor, and noise experienced by one sensitive receptor would exceed federal standards. A short segment of Rock Creek would be altered, and the project would affect 2.28 acres of the park, though this area is in poor condition and would be enhanced by the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050262, Draft EIS--212 pages and maps; Appendices--191 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375022?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&rft.title=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, CHIRICAHUA NATIONAL MONUMENT, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, CHIRICAHUA NATIONAL MONUMENT, ARIZONA. AN - 36374750; 050574F-050265_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP) for the Chiricahua National Monument, Arizona is proposed. Most of the 11,985-acre monument has been designated as wilderness. Tree ring studies demonstrate that that widespread fires were once frequent events in the Chiricahua Mountains; the fire season takes place annually with the onset of the summer monsoon season and accompanying lightning. Fire suppression during the last century seems to have altered plant communities, and the changes in the structure and composition of vegetation communities probably affected wildlife. Fuels have accumulated in the absence of fire, increasing the risk of wild land fires that could cause extensive damage. Some fire management began in the monument in the 1970s, but these efforts have been limited. Objectives identified during scoping include those related to the human health and safety; the qualifications of fire control personnel; the reduction of fuels that could adversely affect park developments, cultural resources, and ecologically sensitive areas; designation of a resource advisor to an fire with the potential to adversely affect sensitive resources; minimization of unacceptable impacts of wild land fire suppression on natural and cultural resources through burned area rehabilitation where appropriate; and the development of burn prescriptions and objectives to minimize unacceptable impacts of prescribed fire on natural and cultural resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Action Alternative would allow wild land fire use only in a small fire management unit in the center of the park. Alternative A would allow wild land fire use throughout the park backcountry areas and call for automatic suppression only in a canyon-bottom corridor that contains almost all park developments and burnable historic structures. Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would push the boundaries of the management area out to natural watershed limits at the Coronado National Forest boundary on the north, east, and south sides. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, the Coronado National Forest would act as an active partner, and the monument's prescribed burn complexes cover ZOC on national forest land. Wild land fire use would also be permitted out to zone boundaries. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new FMP would incorporate recent policies and advances in fire research and operations. Allowing low- to moderate-intensity fire to burn over more areas could reduce the risk of large-scale, high-intensity fires to a greater degree than the other alternatives. Expanding the burnable area and the flexibility of burn conditions would move resources to more routine fire events rather than forcing the investment at resources in high cost suppression of widespread, high-intensity fires. Over the long-term, the FMP would reduce fire risk, assist the reproduction of fire-tolerant plant species, and renew habitats. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: the FMP would result in some short-term, minor adverse impacts, such as inconvenience to visitors, discouragement of tourism, disturbance of cultural resources, the loss of individual plants and animals and their habitat, changes to the character of unique sites and wilderness, increases in erosion, and degradation of air quality. 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 05-0324D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050265, 201 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Historic Sites KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Safety KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Chiricahua National Monument KW - Coronado National Forest 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/36374750?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CHIRICAHUA+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CHIRICAHUA+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Willcox, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. [Part 17 of 19] T2 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. AN - 36374602; 050651D-050262_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of and 0.7-mile Klingle Road for vehicular and recreational uses within city rights-of-way in the District of Columbia is proposed. The project corridor extends from Porter Street, Northwest, on the east, to Cortland Place, NW, on the west. The improvement would include a crossing of Rock Creek and Rock Creek Park, which is under the administrative control of the National Park Service. The project is intended to address structural and environmental damage caused by flooding along Rock Creek and to accommodate storm water flows and implement other drainage improvements along Klingle Creek within the project corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative C) would involve the reconstruction of Klingle Road to its original 22-foot-wide alignment, providing two travel lanes, each measuring 10 feet in width and the roadway would flanked by flanked by one-foot clearance zones to accommodate curb-and-gutter sections. Storm water management would involve provision of conduits under Klingle Road to contain existing piped flow and allow existing overland flow in Klingle Creek. Retaining walls would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstruction of Klingle Road would re-link the roadway with a previously existing collector route, which extends from Beach Drive at Rock Creek Parkway to Wisconsin Avenue via Woodley Road prior to 1991. Ongoing road and environmental damage caused by storm water flows would be ameliorated. Pedestrians and recreation-oriented users would be provided access o Klingle Road with the use of motor vehicles. Visual aesthetics in the area would improve. Erosion control measures would be provided. Uncontrolled runoff would cease damaging vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat and cease threatening possible archaeological resource sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parkland would be displaced, and two acres of impervious surface would remain after project completion. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase significantly along the corridor, and noise experienced by one sensitive receptor would exceed federal standards. A short segment of Rock Creek would be altered, and the project would affect 2.28 acres of the park, though this area is in poor condition and would be enhanced by the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050262, Draft EIS--212 pages and maps; Appendices--191 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374602?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&rft.title=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. [Part 11 of 19] T2 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. AN - 36374438; 050651D-050262_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of and 0.7-mile Klingle Road for vehicular and recreational uses within city rights-of-way in the District of Columbia is proposed. The project corridor extends from Porter Street, Northwest, on the east, to Cortland Place, NW, on the west. The improvement would include a crossing of Rock Creek and Rock Creek Park, which is under the administrative control of the National Park Service. The project is intended to address structural and environmental damage caused by flooding along Rock Creek and to accommodate storm water flows and implement other drainage improvements along Klingle Creek within the project corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative C) would involve the reconstruction of Klingle Road to its original 22-foot-wide alignment, providing two travel lanes, each measuring 10 feet in width and the roadway would flanked by flanked by one-foot clearance zones to accommodate curb-and-gutter sections. Storm water management would involve provision of conduits under Klingle Road to contain existing piped flow and allow existing overland flow in Klingle Creek. Retaining walls would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstruction of Klingle Road would re-link the roadway with a previously existing collector route, which extends from Beach Drive at Rock Creek Parkway to Wisconsin Avenue via Woodley Road prior to 1991. Ongoing road and environmental damage caused by storm water flows would be ameliorated. Pedestrians and recreation-oriented users would be provided access o Klingle Road with the use of motor vehicles. Visual aesthetics in the area would improve. Erosion control measures would be provided. Uncontrolled runoff would cease damaging vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat and cease threatening possible archaeological resource sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parkland would be displaced, and two acres of impervious surface would remain after project completion. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase significantly along the corridor, and noise experienced by one sensitive receptor would exceed federal standards. A short segment of Rock Creek would be altered, and the project would affect 2.28 acres of the park, though this area is in poor condition and would be enhanced by the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050262, Draft EIS--212 pages and maps; Appendices--191 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&rft.title=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. [Part 2 of 19] T2 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. AN - 36373915; 050651D-050262_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of and 0.7-mile Klingle Road for vehicular and recreational uses within city rights-of-way in the District of Columbia is proposed. The project corridor extends from Porter Street, Northwest, on the east, to Cortland Place, NW, on the west. The improvement would include a crossing of Rock Creek and Rock Creek Park, which is under the administrative control of the National Park Service. The project is intended to address structural and environmental damage caused by flooding along Rock Creek and to accommodate storm water flows and implement other drainage improvements along Klingle Creek within the project corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative C) would involve the reconstruction of Klingle Road to its original 22-foot-wide alignment, providing two travel lanes, each measuring 10 feet in width and the roadway would flanked by flanked by one-foot clearance zones to accommodate curb-and-gutter sections. Storm water management would involve provision of conduits under Klingle Road to contain existing piped flow and allow existing overland flow in Klingle Creek. Retaining walls would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstruction of Klingle Road would re-link the roadway with a previously existing collector route, which extends from Beach Drive at Rock Creek Parkway to Wisconsin Avenue via Woodley Road prior to 1991. Ongoing road and environmental damage caused by storm water flows would be ameliorated. Pedestrians and recreation-oriented users would be provided access o Klingle Road with the use of motor vehicles. Visual aesthetics in the area would improve. Erosion control measures would be provided. Uncontrolled runoff would cease damaging vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat and cease threatening possible archaeological resource sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parkland would be displaced, and two acres of impervious surface would remain after project completion. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase significantly along the corridor, and noise experienced by one sensitive receptor would exceed federal standards. A short segment of Rock Creek would be altered, and the project would affect 2.28 acres of the park, though this area is in poor condition and would be enhanced by the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050262, Draft EIS--212 pages and maps; Appendices--191 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373915?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&rft.title=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. [Part 18 of 19] T2 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. AN - 36373248; 050651D-050262_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of and 0.7-mile Klingle Road for vehicular and recreational uses within city rights-of-way in the District of Columbia is proposed. The project corridor extends from Porter Street, Northwest, on the east, to Cortland Place, NW, on the west. The improvement would include a crossing of Rock Creek and Rock Creek Park, which is under the administrative control of the National Park Service. The project is intended to address structural and environmental damage caused by flooding along Rock Creek and to accommodate storm water flows and implement other drainage improvements along Klingle Creek within the project corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative C) would involve the reconstruction of Klingle Road to its original 22-foot-wide alignment, providing two travel lanes, each measuring 10 feet in width and the roadway would flanked by flanked by one-foot clearance zones to accommodate curb-and-gutter sections. Storm water management would involve provision of conduits under Klingle Road to contain existing piped flow and allow existing overland flow in Klingle Creek. Retaining walls would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstruction of Klingle Road would re-link the roadway with a previously existing collector route, which extends from Beach Drive at Rock Creek Parkway to Wisconsin Avenue via Woodley Road prior to 1991. Ongoing road and environmental damage caused by storm water flows would be ameliorated. Pedestrians and recreation-oriented users would be provided access o Klingle Road with the use of motor vehicles. Visual aesthetics in the area would improve. Erosion control measures would be provided. Uncontrolled runoff would cease damaging vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat and cease threatening possible archaeological resource sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parkland would be displaced, and two acres of impervious surface would remain after project completion. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase significantly along the corridor, and noise experienced by one sensitive receptor would exceed federal standards. A short segment of Rock Creek would be altered, and the project would affect 2.28 acres of the park, though this area is in poor condition and would be enhanced by the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050262, Draft EIS--212 pages and maps; Appendices--191 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373248?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&rft.title=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. [Part 14 of 19] T2 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. AN - 36373223; 050651D-050262_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of and 0.7-mile Klingle Road for vehicular and recreational uses within city rights-of-way in the District of Columbia is proposed. The project corridor extends from Porter Street, Northwest, on the east, to Cortland Place, NW, on the west. The improvement would include a crossing of Rock Creek and Rock Creek Park, which is under the administrative control of the National Park Service. The project is intended to address structural and environmental damage caused by flooding along Rock Creek and to accommodate storm water flows and implement other drainage improvements along Klingle Creek within the project corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative C) would involve the reconstruction of Klingle Road to its original 22-foot-wide alignment, providing two travel lanes, each measuring 10 feet in width and the roadway would flanked by flanked by one-foot clearance zones to accommodate curb-and-gutter sections. Storm water management would involve provision of conduits under Klingle Road to contain existing piped flow and allow existing overland flow in Klingle Creek. Retaining walls would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstruction of Klingle Road would re-link the roadway with a previously existing collector route, which extends from Beach Drive at Rock Creek Parkway to Wisconsin Avenue via Woodley Road prior to 1991. Ongoing road and environmental damage caused by storm water flows would be ameliorated. Pedestrians and recreation-oriented users would be provided access o Klingle Road with the use of motor vehicles. Visual aesthetics in the area would improve. Erosion control measures would be provided. Uncontrolled runoff would cease damaging vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat and cease threatening possible archaeological resource sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parkland would be displaced, and two acres of impervious surface would remain after project completion. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase significantly along the corridor, and noise experienced by one sensitive receptor would exceed federal standards. A short segment of Rock Creek would be altered, and the project would affect 2.28 acres of the park, though this area is in poor condition and would be enhanced by the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050262, Draft EIS--212 pages and maps; Appendices--191 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373223?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&rft.title=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. [Part 9 of 19] T2 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. AN - 36372703; 050651D-050262_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of and 0.7-mile Klingle Road for vehicular and recreational uses within city rights-of-way in the District of Columbia is proposed. The project corridor extends from Porter Street, Northwest, on the east, to Cortland Place, NW, on the west. The improvement would include a crossing of Rock Creek and Rock Creek Park, which is under the administrative control of the National Park Service. The project is intended to address structural and environmental damage caused by flooding along Rock Creek and to accommodate storm water flows and implement other drainage improvements along Klingle Creek within the project corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative C) would involve the reconstruction of Klingle Road to its original 22-foot-wide alignment, providing two travel lanes, each measuring 10 feet in width and the roadway would flanked by flanked by one-foot clearance zones to accommodate curb-and-gutter sections. Storm water management would involve provision of conduits under Klingle Road to contain existing piped flow and allow existing overland flow in Klingle Creek. Retaining walls would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstruction of Klingle Road would re-link the roadway with a previously existing collector route, which extends from Beach Drive at Rock Creek Parkway to Wisconsin Avenue via Woodley Road prior to 1991. Ongoing road and environmental damage caused by storm water flows would be ameliorated. Pedestrians and recreation-oriented users would be provided access o Klingle Road with the use of motor vehicles. Visual aesthetics in the area would improve. Erosion control measures would be provided. Uncontrolled runoff would cease damaging vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat and cease threatening possible archaeological resource sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parkland would be displaced, and two acres of impervious surface would remain after project completion. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase significantly along the corridor, and noise experienced by one sensitive receptor would exceed federal standards. A short segment of Rock Creek would be altered, and the project would affect 2.28 acres of the park, though this area is in poor condition and would be enhanced by the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050262, Draft EIS--212 pages and maps; Appendices--191 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372703?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&rft.title=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. [Part 3 of 19] T2 - KLINGLE ROAD, BETWEEN PORTER STREET, NW AND CORTLAND PLACE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC. AN - 36371961; 050651D-050262_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of and 0.7-mile Klingle Road for vehicular and recreational uses within city rights-of-way in the District of Columbia is proposed. The project corridor extends from Porter Street, Northwest, on the east, to Cortland Place, NW, on the west. The improvement would include a crossing of Rock Creek and Rock Creek Park, which is under the administrative control of the National Park Service. The project is intended to address structural and environmental damage caused by flooding along Rock Creek and to accommodate storm water flows and implement other drainage improvements along Klingle Creek within the project corridor. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative C) would involve the reconstruction of Klingle Road to its original 22-foot-wide alignment, providing two travel lanes, each measuring 10 feet in width and the roadway would flanked by flanked by one-foot clearance zones to accommodate curb-and-gutter sections. Storm water management would involve provision of conduits under Klingle Road to contain existing piped flow and allow existing overland flow in Klingle Creek. Retaining walls would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstruction of Klingle Road would re-link the roadway with a previously existing collector route, which extends from Beach Drive at Rock Creek Parkway to Wisconsin Avenue via Woodley Road prior to 1991. Ongoing road and environmental damage caused by storm water flows would be ameliorated. Pedestrians and recreation-oriented users would be provided access o Klingle Road with the use of motor vehicles. Visual aesthetics in the area would improve. Erosion control measures would be provided. Uncontrolled runoff would cease damaging vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat and cease threatening possible archaeological resource sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Parkland would be displaced, and two acres of impervious surface would remain after project completion. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase significantly along the corridor, and noise experienced by one sensitive receptor would exceed federal standards. A short segment of Rock Creek would be altered, and the project would affect 2.28 acres of the park, though this area is in poor condition and would be enhanced by the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050262, Draft EIS--212 pages and maps; Appendices--191 pages, June 23, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371961?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&rft.title=KLINGLE+ROAD%2C+BETWEEN+PORTER+STREET%2C+NW+AND+CORTLAND+PLACE%2C+NW%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DC.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 23, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36431630; 11581 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36431630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 43 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36385023; 050474F-050255_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36385023?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 22 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36382755; 050474F-050255_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382755?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 9 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36382330; 050474F-050255_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382330?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 6 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36382190; 050474F-050255_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382190?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 51 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36379541; 050474F-050255_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 51 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379541?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 50 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36379376; 050474F-050255_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379376?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 53 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36378126; 050474F-050255_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 53 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378126?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 37 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36378115; 050474F-050255_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378115?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 33 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36377980; 050474F-050255_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36377980?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 14 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36377952; 050474F-050255_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36377952?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 21 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36375204; 050474F-050255_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375204?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 38 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36375067; 050474F-050255_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375067?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 36 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36375032; 050474F-050255_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375032?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 67 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36374943; 050474F-050255_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 67 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 26 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36374910; 050474F-050255_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374910?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 12 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36374905; 050474F-050255_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 68 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36374870; 050474F-050255_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 68 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374870?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 46 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36374805; 050474F-050255_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374805?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 66 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36374796; 050474F-050255_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 66 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 64 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36374777; 050474F-050255_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 64 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374777?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 11 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36374724; 050474F-050255_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374724?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 58 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36374585; 050474F-050255_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 58 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374585?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 52 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36374517; 050474F-050255_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 52 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374517?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 59 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36374423; 050474F-050255_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 59 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374423?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 54 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36374391; 050474F-050255_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 54 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374391?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 28 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36374390; 050474F-050255_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 61 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36374229; 050474F-050255_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 61 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374229?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 25 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36374228; 050474F-050255_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374228?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 17 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36374190; 050474F-050255_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374190?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 15 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36374001; 050474F-050255_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 34 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36373994; 050474F-050255_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 23 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36373877; 050474F-050255_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373877?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 5 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36373869; 050474F-050255_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373869?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 65 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36373864; 050474F-050255_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 65 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373864?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 31 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36373861; 050474F-050255_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373861?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 29 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36373846; 050474F-050255_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373846?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 49 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36373811; 050474F-050255_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373811?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 2 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36373732; 050474F-050255_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373732?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 8 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36373714; 050474F-050255_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373714?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 62 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36373692; 050474F-050255_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 62 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373692?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 48 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36373644; 050474F-050255_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 48 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373644?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 55 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36373614; 050474F-050255_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 55 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373614?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 47 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36373520; 050474F-050255_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 47 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373520?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 35 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36373466; 050474F-050255_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 10 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36373421; 050474F-050255_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373421?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 18 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36373312; 050474F-050255_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373312?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 32 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36373301; 050474F-050255_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373301?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 4 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36373264; 050474F-050255_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 13 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36373150; 050474F-050255_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373150?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 41 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36372986; 050474F-050255_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 41 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372986?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 45 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36372689; 050474F-050255_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372689?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 63 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36372668; 050474F-050255_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 63 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372668?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 7 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36372574; 050474F-050255_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372574?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 56 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36372459; 050474F-050255_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 56 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372459?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 20 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36372373; 050474F-050255_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372373?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 16 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36372260; 050474F-050255_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372260?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 39 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36372104; 050474F-050255_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 39 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372104?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 30 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36371982; 050474F-050255_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 19 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36371948; 050474F-050255_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 24 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36371884; 050474F-050255_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371884?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 60 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36371838; 050474F-050255_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 60 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371838?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 42 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36371824; 050474F-050255_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 42 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371824?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 57 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36371700; 050474F-050255_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 57 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371700?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 27 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36371697; 050474F-050255_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371697?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 40 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36371458; 050474F-050255_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371458?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 3 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36371396; 050474F-050255_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371396?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. [Part 1 of 68] T2 - WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 36371120; 050474F-050255_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a wind energy development program on lands administered by the Bureau of Land management (BLM) in 11 states in the Western U.S. is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The affected area would include all BLM-administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Currently, approximately 500 megawatts (MW) of installed wind energy capacity has been established under rights-of-way grants administered by the BLM. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, continue administering wind energy development rights-of-way grants in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy. Analysis and review of wind energy development, including environmental analysis and development of required mitigation measures, would be conducted on a project-by-project basis. Individual land use plan amendments would occur on a plan-by-plan basis, without the benefit of the overarching, comprehensive analysis provided by this programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action, the BLM would implement a comprehensive program to address issues associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands under the maximum potential development scenario (MPDS). The program would establish policies and best management practices (BMPs) to address the administration of wind energy development activities and identify minimum requirements for mitigation measures. These programmatic policies and BMPs would be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands. Site-specific and specifies-specific concerns and the development of additional mitigation measures would be addressed in project-level reviews. To the extent appropriate, future project-specific analyses would tier off the analysis conducted in this programmatic EIS and the divisions in the resultant record of decision to allow project-specific analysis to focus solely on the critical, site-specific issues of concern. In addition, a number of land use plans would be amended to address wind energy development, including adoption of programmatic policies and BMPs and identification of exclusion areas. Under the limited wind eenergy development alterative additional wind energy development on BLM-administered land would only occur in areas where it currently exists or is under review or approved for development at the time of the record of decision for this programmatic EIS. Under these restrictions, development would be limited to the following locations, where development currently exists: Palm Springs, California; Ridgecrest, California; and Arlington, Wyoming. In addition, locations where it is currently being considered would be eligible for wind energy developments, as follows: the Table Mountain Wind Generating Facility, Nevada; Cotterel Mountain Wind Farm Project, Idaho; and Walker Ridge, California. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow controlled development of wind energy projects on BLM-administered land, promoting the use of this energy resource while preventing undue environmental impacts. Wind energy would replace existing or potential energy developments using fossil fuel, reducing the release of air and water pollutants, particularly atmospheric releases of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. Time lines for wind energy development and development costs would likely be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments would have moderate impacts on vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and degrade visual aesthetics is affected areas, and the operation of wind energy facilities could increase local bird and bat mortality due to blade collisions. 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 05-0138D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050255, 381 pages, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-11 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Regulations KW - Vegetation 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371120?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=WIND+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+ON+BLM-ADMINISTERED+LANDS+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COTTEREL WIND POWER PROJECT, CASSIA COUNTY, IDAHO AN - 36436786; 11575 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a rights-of-way application for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a wind energy facility along the Cottrell 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 WindEnergy, 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050249, 421 pages, June 15, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 05-23 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/36436786?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-15&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COTTEREL WIND POWER PROJECT, CASSIA COUNTY, IDAHO [Part 1 of 1] T2 - COTTEREL WIND POWER PROJECT, CASSIA COUNTY, IDAHO AN - 36372063; 050473D-050249_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a rights-of-way application for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a wind energy facility along the Cottrell 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 WindEnergy, 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050249, 421 pages, June 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 05-23 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/36372063?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-15&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2000.) AN - 36437024; 11570 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised comprehensive management plan for the 81-mile Merced Wild and Scenic River in the Yosemite National Park of California is proposed. Major issues identified during scoping include those related to the outstanding remarkable values of the river corridor, the free-flowing condition of the river, the purpose of the national park, natural resources, cultural resources, land use and facilities, visitor experience, planning process, and management and operations. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the final EIS of June 2000. This draft supplement to the final EIS responds to an October 2003 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The supplement addresses the court's requirement that the revised management plan must implement a user capacity program that would provide for specific measurable limits on use and that would reassess the river corridor boundary in the El Portal administrative site based on the location of outstandingly remarkable values. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the management regime selected in the final EIS, are considered. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would emphasize visitor experience and resource protection (VERP). The alternative would include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative, including stipulations on boundaries, classifications, outstandingly remarkable values, management zoning, and river protection overlay). Alternative 2 would add the implementation of the VERP user cohabit component, along with interim limits on some park facilities. The El Portal segment boundary would be redraw based on the location of the outstanding remarkable values identified to within 0.25 mile of the river. Alternative 3 would also include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative as well as a VERP user capacity component and a maximum daily quota for each river segment, a maximum annual visitation quota, and a daily quota on day-use hikers to Half Dome. The El Portal segment would have a0.25mile boundary. Alternative 4 would contain all the elements of the No Action Alternative as well as a VERP user capacity component, quotas for each river management zone, and an annual maximum visitation quota. The El Portal segment boundary would be drawn according to the location of outstandingly remarkable values. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would protect and enhance natural resources associated with the river, protect and restore natural hydrological and geomorphic processes, protect and enhance cultural resources, provide diverse recreational and educational experiences, and provide for appropriate land uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plans that do not involve removal of man-made structures would continue all such structures to detract from the wild and scenic nature of the river corridor. Alternatives emphasizing the wild and scenic nature of the river over visitor access would decrease the recreational value of the river for visitors seeking more developed forms of recreation. LEGAL MANDATES: California Wilderness Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-425), El Portal Administrative Site Authorization Act (72 Stat. 1771), Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-363), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0173D, Volume 24, Number 2 and 00-0460F, Volume, 24, Number 4, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 05-0341D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050244, 271 pages and maps, June 13, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Land Use KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Merced River KW - Yosemite National Park KW - California Wilderness Act of 1984, Compliance KW - El Portal Administrative Site Authorization Act, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Omnibus Appropriations Act, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36437024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+REVISED+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2000.%29&rft.title=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+REVISED+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2000.%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 13, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2000.) [Part 3 of 3] T2 - MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2000.) AN - 36373191; 050563F-050244_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised comprehensive management plan for the 81-mile Merced Wild and Scenic River in the Yosemite National Park of California is proposed. Major issues identified during scoping include those related to the outstanding remarkable values of the river corridor, the free-flowing condition of the river, the purpose of the national park, natural resources, cultural resources, land use and facilities, visitor experience, planning process, and management and operations. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the final EIS of June 2000. This draft supplement to the final EIS responds to an October 2003 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The supplement addresses the court's requirement that the revised management plan must implement a user capacity program that would provide for specific measurable limits on use and that would reassess the river corridor boundary in the El Portal administrative site based on the location of outstandingly remarkable values. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the management regime selected in the final EIS, are considered. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would emphasize visitor experience and resource protection (VERP). The alternative would include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative, including stipulations on boundaries, classifications, outstandingly remarkable values, management zoning, and river protection overlay). Alternative 2 would add the implementation of the VERP user cohabit component, along with interim limits on some park facilities. The El Portal segment boundary would be redraw based on the location of the outstanding remarkable values identified to within 0.25 mile of the river. Alternative 3 would also include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative as well as a VERP user capacity component and a maximum daily quota for each river segment, a maximum annual visitation quota, and a daily quota on day-use hikers to Half Dome. The El Portal segment would have a0.25mile boundary. Alternative 4 would contain all the elements of the No Action Alternative as well as a VERP user capacity component, quotas for each river management zone, and an annual maximum visitation quota. The El Portal segment boundary would be drawn according to the location of outstandingly remarkable values. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would protect and enhance natural resources associated with the river, protect and restore natural hydrological and geomorphic processes, protect and enhance cultural resources, provide diverse recreational and educational experiences, and provide for appropriate land uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plans that do not involve removal of man-made structures would continue all such structures to detract from the wild and scenic nature of the river corridor. Alternatives emphasizing the wild and scenic nature of the river over visitor access would decrease the recreational value of the river for visitors seeking more developed forms of recreation. LEGAL MANDATES: California Wilderness Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-425), El Portal Administrative Site Authorization Act (72 Stat. 1771), Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-363), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0173D, Volume 24, Number 2 and 00-0460F, Volume, 24, Number 4, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 05-0341D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050244, 271 pages and maps, June 13, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Land Use KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Merced River KW - Yosemite National Park KW - California Wilderness Act of 1984, Compliance KW - El Portal Administrative Site Authorization Act, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Omnibus Appropriations Act, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373191?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+REVISED+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2000.%29&rft.title=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+REVISED+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2000.%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 13, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2000.) [Part 1 of 3] T2 - MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2000.) AN - 36372220; 050563F-050244_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised comprehensive management plan for the 81-mile Merced Wild and Scenic River in the Yosemite National Park of California is proposed. Major issues identified during scoping include those related to the outstanding remarkable values of the river corridor, the free-flowing condition of the river, the purpose of the national park, natural resources, cultural resources, land use and facilities, visitor experience, planning process, and management and operations. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the final EIS of June 2000. This draft supplement to the final EIS responds to an October 2003 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The supplement addresses the court's requirement that the revised management plan must implement a user capacity program that would provide for specific measurable limits on use and that would reassess the river corridor boundary in the El Portal administrative site based on the location of outstandingly remarkable values. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the management regime selected in the final EIS, are considered. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would emphasize visitor experience and resource protection (VERP). The alternative would include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative, including stipulations on boundaries, classifications, outstandingly remarkable values, management zoning, and river protection overlay). Alternative 2 would add the implementation of the VERP user cohabit component, along with interim limits on some park facilities. The El Portal segment boundary would be redraw based on the location of the outstanding remarkable values identified to within 0.25 mile of the river. Alternative 3 would also include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative as well as a VERP user capacity component and a maximum daily quota for each river segment, a maximum annual visitation quota, and a daily quota on day-use hikers to Half Dome. The El Portal segment would have a0.25mile boundary. Alternative 4 would contain all the elements of the No Action Alternative as well as a VERP user capacity component, quotas for each river management zone, and an annual maximum visitation quota. The El Portal segment boundary would be drawn according to the location of outstandingly remarkable values. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would protect and enhance natural resources associated with the river, protect and restore natural hydrological and geomorphic processes, protect and enhance cultural resources, provide diverse recreational and educational experiences, and provide for appropriate land uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plans that do not involve removal of man-made structures would continue all such structures to detract from the wild and scenic nature of the river corridor. Alternatives emphasizing the wild and scenic nature of the river over visitor access would decrease the recreational value of the river for visitors seeking more developed forms of recreation. LEGAL MANDATES: California Wilderness Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-425), El Portal Administrative Site Authorization Act (72 Stat. 1771), Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-363), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0173D, Volume 24, Number 2 and 00-0460F, Volume, 24, Number 4, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 05-0341D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050244, 271 pages and maps, June 13, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Land Use KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Merced River KW - Yosemite National Park KW - California Wilderness Act of 1984, Compliance KW - El Portal Administrative Site Authorization Act, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Omnibus Appropriations Act, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372220?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+REVISED+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2000.%29&rft.title=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+REVISED+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2000.%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 13, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2000.) [Part 2 of 3] T2 - MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2000.) AN - 36370246; 050563F-050244_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised comprehensive management plan for the 81-mile Merced Wild and Scenic River in the Yosemite National Park of California is proposed. Major issues identified during scoping include those related to the outstanding remarkable values of the river corridor, the free-flowing condition of the river, the purpose of the national park, natural resources, cultural resources, land use and facilities, visitor experience, planning process, and management and operations. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the final EIS of June 2000. This draft supplement to the final EIS responds to an October 2003 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The supplement addresses the court's requirement that the revised management plan must implement a user capacity program that would provide for specific measurable limits on use and that would reassess the river corridor boundary in the El Portal administrative site based on the location of outstandingly remarkable values. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the management regime selected in the final EIS, are considered. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would emphasize visitor experience and resource protection (VERP). The alternative would include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative, including stipulations on boundaries, classifications, outstandingly remarkable values, management zoning, and river protection overlay). Alternative 2 would add the implementation of the VERP user cohabit component, along with interim limits on some park facilities. The El Portal segment boundary would be redraw based on the location of the outstanding remarkable values identified to within 0.25 mile of the river. Alternative 3 would also include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative as well as a VERP user capacity component and a maximum daily quota for each river segment, a maximum annual visitation quota, and a daily quota on day-use hikers to Half Dome. The El Portal segment would have a0.25mile boundary. Alternative 4 would contain all the elements of the No Action Alternative as well as a VERP user capacity component, quotas for each river management zone, and an annual maximum visitation quota. The El Portal segment boundary would be drawn according to the location of outstandingly remarkable values. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would protect and enhance natural resources associated with the river, protect and restore natural hydrological and geomorphic processes, protect and enhance cultural resources, provide diverse recreational and educational experiences, and provide for appropriate land uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plans that do not involve removal of man-made structures would continue all such structures to detract from the wild and scenic nature of the river corridor. Alternatives emphasizing the wild and scenic nature of the river over visitor access would decrease the recreational value of the river for visitors seeking more developed forms of recreation. LEGAL MANDATES: California Wilderness Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-425), El Portal Administrative Site Authorization Act (72 Stat. 1771), Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-363), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0173D, Volume 24, Number 2 and 00-0460F, Volume, 24, Number 4, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 05-0341D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050244, 271 pages and maps, June 13, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Land Use KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Merced River KW - Yosemite National Park KW - California Wilderness Act of 1984, Compliance KW - El Portal Administrative Site Authorization Act, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Omnibus Appropriations Act, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370246?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+REVISED+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2000.%29&rft.title=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+REVISED+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2000.%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 13, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO NATIONAL MONUMENT, MESA COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - COLORADO NATIONAL MONUMENT, MESA COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36380744; 050567F-050252_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Colorado National Monument of Mesa County, Colorado is proposed. The monument preserves one of the grand landscapes of the American West. Sheer-walled canyons, towering monoliths, colorful formations, dinosaur fossils, remains of prehistoric Native American cultures, desert bighorn sheep, and soaring golden enables reflect the environment and history of this plateau- and canyon country. Historic Rim Rock Drive offers 23 miles of breathtaking panoramic views and numerous overlooks. Management areas to be addressed by the plan, which would provide guidance for the monument for the next 15 to 20 years, include those related to ecosystems, cultural resources, vandalism and other resource damage, scenic vistas, air quality, dark night skies, natural soundscapes, implementation of a comprehensive inventory of resources and an associated monitoring plan, the range of visitor opportunities, trails and trailheads, user conflicts on Rim Rock Drive, the potential failure of Rim Rock Drive, interagency information sharing, wilderness, education and outreach, staffing and funding, boundary adjustments, patrolling of the east side, ethnographic resources, and cooperative planning and management. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue current management practices, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would weave the monument into the regional ecosystem on the northeastern edge of the Colorado Plateau by pursuing common stewardship goals with government agencies, Native American tribes, educational institutions, and communities. While managed as a unit of the National Park System, the monument's importance to and long relationship with the grand Valley would be recognized as a foundation of a shared future. Emphasis would be placed on providing a spectrum of opportunities for people to connect to the monument's important resources and values and to form a conservation ethic. To that end, the strategy would be to prepare for expected regional demand to enjoy the monument, while protecting resources. By strengthening individual relationships, partnerships would be formed for the future protection of common regional and ecosystem goals in the Grand Valley. The Saddlehorn campground would be improved to accommodate some recreational vehicles and more groups, while maintaining its rustic character. The Saddlehorn picnic area would be redesigned to improve visitor enjoyment and protect resources. The Devils Kitchen picnic area would be maintained to protect its historic character; the entrance stations would be improved. Certain undeveloped trail routes would be improved to designated trails for hikers and horses. The monument would continue to use housing at Saddle horn for required staff occupants and administrative space. Housing would be removed from the east entrance. Three minor boundary adjustments would be sought to improve trail heads. Alternative C would focus on making the monument a benchmark of undisturbed ecosystems on the northeastern edge of the Uncompahgre Plateau. Land management agencies would form partnerships to provide a full spectrum of resource conditions and visitor opportunities. Within the mosaic of public lands, the monument would be a distinct control plot focused on the preservation of its important resources and values. The monument would be an outdoor laboratory for learning and developing a conservation ethic. Emphasis would be placed on its role in the national park system, while recognizing the importance of relationships with the residents of the Grand Valley. Capital costs of construction improvements for the preferred alternative are estimated to be between $4.6 million and $6.0 million. Ongoing annual repair and rehabilitation costs for existing facilities are estimated at $220,000 to $630,000. Annual operating costs are estimated at $2.6 million to $3.0 million. Life-cycle costs, inclusive of all capital and annual costs, projected over 25-years, are estimated at $39.6 million to $45.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The variety of recreational experiences and visitor safety would increase substantially through reduction of conflicts between users on Rim Rock Drive. Persons seeking information and participating in public education programs at the monument would find far more resources to meet their needs. Monument operations would become more efficient and effective. The unique natural setting of the monument would be protected and preserved for future generations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities development would result in some habitat loss and fragmentation. Ongoing damage to natural and cultural resources due to continued visitor use and regional development trends could be increased by trail improvements; these impacts would be largely offset by mitigation, interagency cooperation, and partnerships. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), 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.), Presidential Proclamations 2037 and 3307. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0426D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050252, 294 pages, June 12, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 04-20 KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Indian Reservations KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Colorado KW - Colorado National Monument KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 2037, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 3307, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380744?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+MESA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+MESA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Fruite, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 12, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO NATIONAL MONUMENT, MESA COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - COLORADO NATIONAL MONUMENT, MESA COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36374040; 050567F-050252_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Colorado National Monument of Mesa County, Colorado is proposed. The monument preserves one of the grand landscapes of the American West. Sheer-walled canyons, towering monoliths, colorful formations, dinosaur fossils, remains of prehistoric Native American cultures, desert bighorn sheep, and soaring golden enables reflect the environment and history of this plateau- and canyon country. Historic Rim Rock Drive offers 23 miles of breathtaking panoramic views and numerous overlooks. Management areas to be addressed by the plan, which would provide guidance for the monument for the next 15 to 20 years, include those related to ecosystems, cultural resources, vandalism and other resource damage, scenic vistas, air quality, dark night skies, natural soundscapes, implementation of a comprehensive inventory of resources and an associated monitoring plan, the range of visitor opportunities, trails and trailheads, user conflicts on Rim Rock Drive, the potential failure of Rim Rock Drive, interagency information sharing, wilderness, education and outreach, staffing and funding, boundary adjustments, patrolling of the east side, ethnographic resources, and cooperative planning and management. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue current management practices, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would weave the monument into the regional ecosystem on the northeastern edge of the Colorado Plateau by pursuing common stewardship goals with government agencies, Native American tribes, educational institutions, and communities. While managed as a unit of the National Park System, the monument's importance to and long relationship with the grand Valley would be recognized as a foundation of a shared future. Emphasis would be placed on providing a spectrum of opportunities for people to connect to the monument's important resources and values and to form a conservation ethic. To that end, the strategy would be to prepare for expected regional demand to enjoy the monument, while protecting resources. By strengthening individual relationships, partnerships would be formed for the future protection of common regional and ecosystem goals in the Grand Valley. The Saddlehorn campground would be improved to accommodate some recreational vehicles and more groups, while maintaining its rustic character. The Saddlehorn picnic area would be redesigned to improve visitor enjoyment and protect resources. The Devils Kitchen picnic area would be maintained to protect its historic character; the entrance stations would be improved. Certain undeveloped trail routes would be improved to designated trails for hikers and horses. The monument would continue to use housing at Saddle horn for required staff occupants and administrative space. Housing would be removed from the east entrance. Three minor boundary adjustments would be sought to improve trail heads. Alternative C would focus on making the monument a benchmark of undisturbed ecosystems on the northeastern edge of the Uncompahgre Plateau. Land management agencies would form partnerships to provide a full spectrum of resource conditions and visitor opportunities. Within the mosaic of public lands, the monument would be a distinct control plot focused on the preservation of its important resources and values. The monument would be an outdoor laboratory for learning and developing a conservation ethic. Emphasis would be placed on its role in the national park system, while recognizing the importance of relationships with the residents of the Grand Valley. Capital costs of construction improvements for the preferred alternative are estimated to be between $4.6 million and $6.0 million. Ongoing annual repair and rehabilitation costs for existing facilities are estimated at $220,000 to $630,000. Annual operating costs are estimated at $2.6 million to $3.0 million. Life-cycle costs, inclusive of all capital and annual costs, projected over 25-years, are estimated at $39.6 million to $45.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The variety of recreational experiences and visitor safety would increase substantially through reduction of conflicts between users on Rim Rock Drive. Persons seeking information and participating in public education programs at the monument would find far more resources to meet their needs. Monument operations would become more efficient and effective. The unique natural setting of the monument would be protected and preserved for future generations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities development would result in some habitat loss and fragmentation. Ongoing damage to natural and cultural resources due to continued visitor use and regional development trends could be increased by trail improvements; these impacts would be largely offset by mitigation, interagency cooperation, and partnerships. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), 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.), Presidential Proclamations 2037 and 3307. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0426D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050252, 294 pages, June 12, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 04-20 KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Indian Reservations KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Colorado KW - Colorado National Monument KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 2037, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 3307, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+MESA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+MESA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Fruite, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 12, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO NATIONAL MONUMENT, MESA COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 16349787; 11578 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Colorado National Monument of Mesa County, Colorado is proposed. The monument preserves one of the grand landscapes of the American West. Sheer-walled canyons, towering monoliths, colorful formations, dinosaur fossils, remains of prehistoric Native American cultures, desert bighorn sheep, and soaring golden enables reflect the environment and history of this plateau- and canyon country. Historic Rim Rock Drive offers 23 miles of breathtaking panoramic views and numerous overlooks. Management areas to be addressed by the plan, which would provide guidance for the monument for the next 15 to 20 years, include those related to ecosystems, cultural resources, vandalism and other resource damage, scenic vistas, air quality, dark night skies, natural soundscapes, implementation of a comprehensive inventory of resources and an associated monitoring plan, the range of visitor opportunities, trails and trailheads, user conflicts on Rim Rock Drive, the potential failure of Rim Rock Drive, interagency information sharing, wilderness, education and outreach, staffing and funding, boundary adjustments, patrolling of the east side, ethnographic resources, and cooperative planning and management. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue current management practices, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would weave the monument into the regional ecosystem on the northeastern edge of the Colorado Plateau by pursuing common stewardship goals with government agencies, Native American tribes, educational institutions, and communities. While managed as a unit of the National Park System, the monument's importance to and long relationship with the grand Valley would be recognized as a foundation of a shared future. Emphasis would be placed on providing a spectrum of opportunities for people to connect to the monument's important resources and values and to form a conservation ethic. To that end, the strategy would be to prepare for expected regional demand to enjoy the monument, while protecting resources. By strengthening individual relationships, partnerships would be formed for the future protection of common regional and ecosystem goals in the Grand Valley. The Saddlehorn campground would be improved to accommodate some recreational vehicles and more groups, while maintaining its rustic character. The Saddlehorn picnic area would be redesigned to improve visitor enjoyment and protect resources. The Devils Kitchen picnic area would be maintained to protect its historic character; the entrance stations would be improved. Certain undeveloped trail routes would be improved to designated trails for hikers and horses. The monument would continue to use housing at Saddle horn for required staff occupants and administrative space. Housing would be removed from the east entrance. Three minor boundary adjustments would be sought to improve trail heads. Alternative C would focus on making the monument a benchmark of undisturbed ecosystems on the northeastern edge of the Uncompahgre Plateau. Land management agencies would form partnerships to provide a full spectrum of resource conditions and visitor opportunities. Within the mosaic of public lands, the monument would be a distinct control plot focused on the preservation of its important resources and values. The monument would be an outdoor laboratory for learning and developing a conservation ethic. Emphasis would be placed on its role in the national park system, while recognizing the importance of relationships with the residents of the Grand Valley. Capital costs of construction improvements for the preferred alternative are estimated to be between $4.6 million and $6.0 million. Ongoing annual repair and rehabilitation costs for existing facilities are estimated at $220,000 to $630,000. Annual operating costs are estimated at $2.6 million to $3.0 million. Life-cycle costs, inclusive of all capital and annual costs, projected over 25-years, are estimated at $39.6 million to $45.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The variety of recreational experiences and visitor safety would increase substantially through reduction of conflicts between users on Rim Rock Drive. Persons seeking information and participating in public education programs at the monument would find far more resources to meet their needs. Monument operations would become more efficient and effective. The unique natural setting of the monument would be protected and preserved for future generations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities development would result in some habitat loss and fragmentation. Ongoing damage to natural and cultural resources due to continued visitor use and regional development trends could be increased by trail improvements; these impacts would be largely offset by mitigation, interagency cooperation, and partnerships. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), 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.), Presidential Proclamations 2037 and 3307. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0426D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050252, 294 pages, June 12, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 04-20 KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Indian Reservations KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Colorado KW - Colorado National Monument KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 2037, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 3307, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16349787?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+MESA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=COLORADO+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+MESA+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Fruite, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 12, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILVER LINE PHASE III, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 36436048; 11567 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's bus rapid transit (BRT) service (the Silver Line) in Boston, Massachusetts is proposed. Phase II of the Silver Line Project would complete this BRT system by providing the essential connection between Phase I, now in operation along Washington Street, and Phase II, now in operation along the South Boston Waterfront. This supplemental draft EIS considers several alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, the Baseline Alternative, as well as four build alignment alternatives. The four build alternatives, all of which are located in the city of Boston, would extend approximately one mile and connect the two existing Silver Line services into a new tunnel referred to as the Core Tunnel Segment. The segment, includes new connections at the existing Boylston Street (Green Line) and Chinatown (Red Line) stations. Depending on the build alternative considered, capital investment cost of Phase III ranges from $768.2 million to $811.7 million. Annual operating costs estimates range from $5.1 million to $5.2 million. 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, are considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Upon completion, Phase III would significantly reduce existing and anticipated congestion in the Phase III corridor, realize significant travel time savings for riders, generate substantial transportation, environmental, and economic development benefits locally, and enhance the value of existing transit investments by improving connections or providing alternatives to the Green and Orange lines of the rapid transit system. 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: Give that the major portion of the alignment of any of the build alternatives would run underground in a tunnel, there would be relatively few long-term impacts. The Core Tunnel Segment would affect parkland and archaeological and historic resources in the vicinity of the Boston Common. The project would involve various easements and use restrictions within buildings and at other sites. Some on- and off-street parking would be displaced. 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: 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: 050240, 548 pages and maps, June 10, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FES 04-39 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Fires KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Livestock KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Massachusetts KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Oregon KW - Utah KW - Washington KW - Wyoming KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILVER+LINE+PHASE+III%2C+BOSTON%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SILVER+LINE+PHASE+III%2C+BOSTON%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILVER LINE PHASE III, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - SILVER LINE PHASE III, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 36373678; 050649D-050240_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's bus rapid transit (BRT) service (the Silver Line) in Boston, Massachusetts is proposed. Phase II of the Silver Line Project would complete this BRT system by providing the essential connection between Phase I, now in operation along Washington Street, and Phase II, now in operation along the South Boston Waterfront. This supplemental draft EIS considers several alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, the Baseline Alternative, as well as four build alignment alternatives. The four build alternatives, all of which are located in the city of Boston, would extend approximately one mile and connect the two existing Silver Line services into a new tunnel referred to as the Core Tunnel Segment. The segment, includes new connections at the existing Boylston Street (Green Line) and Chinatown (Red Line) stations. Depending on the build alternative considered, capital investment cost of Phase III ranges from $768.2 million to $811.7 million. Annual operating costs estimates range from $5.1 million to $5.2 million. 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, are considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Upon completion, Phase III would significantly reduce existing and anticipated congestion in the Phase III corridor, realize significant travel time savings for riders, generate substantial transportation, environmental, and economic development benefits locally, and enhance the value of existing transit investments by improving connections or providing alternatives to the Green and Orange lines of the rapid transit system. 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: Give that the major portion of the alignment of any of the build alternatives would run underground in a tunnel, there would be relatively few long-term impacts. The Core Tunnel Segment would affect parkland and archaeological and historic resources in the vicinity of the Boston Common. The project would involve various easements and use restrictions within buildings and at other sites. Some on- and off-street parking would be displaced. 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: 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: 050240, 548 pages and maps, June 10, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FES 04-39 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Fires KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Livestock KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Massachusetts KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Oregon KW - Utah KW - Washington KW - Wyoming KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373678?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILVER+LINE+PHASE+III%2C+BOSTON%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SILVER+LINE+PHASE+III%2C+BOSTON%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILVER LINE PHASE III, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - SILVER LINE PHASE III, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 36373094; 050649D-050240_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's bus rapid transit (BRT) service (the Silver Line) in Boston, Massachusetts is proposed. Phase II of the Silver Line Project would complete this BRT system by providing the essential connection between Phase I, now in operation along Washington Street, and Phase II, now in operation along the South Boston Waterfront. This supplemental draft EIS considers several alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, the Baseline Alternative, as well as four build alignment alternatives. The four build alternatives, all of which are located in the city of Boston, would extend approximately one mile and connect the two existing Silver Line services into a new tunnel referred to as the Core Tunnel Segment. The segment, includes new connections at the existing Boylston Street (Green Line) and Chinatown (Red Line) stations. Depending on the build alternative considered, capital investment cost of Phase III ranges from $768.2 million to $811.7 million. Annual operating costs estimates range from $5.1 million to $5.2 million. 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, are considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Upon completion, Phase III would significantly reduce existing and anticipated congestion in the Phase III corridor, realize significant travel time savings for riders, generate substantial transportation, environmental, and economic development benefits locally, and enhance the value of existing transit investments by improving connections or providing alternatives to the Green and Orange lines of the rapid transit system. 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: Give that the major portion of the alignment of any of the build alternatives would run underground in a tunnel, there would be relatively few long-term impacts. The Core Tunnel Segment would affect parkland and archaeological and historic resources in the vicinity of the Boston Common. The project would involve various easements and use restrictions within buildings and at other sites. Some on- and off-street parking would be displaced. 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: 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: 050240, 548 pages and maps, June 10, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FES 04-39 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Fires KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Livestock KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Massachusetts KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Oregon KW - Utah KW - Washington KW - Wyoming KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373094?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILVER+LINE+PHASE+III%2C+BOSTON%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SILVER+LINE+PHASE+III%2C+BOSTON%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LINCOLN BOYHOOD NATIONAL MEMORIAL, SPENCER AND LINCOLN COUNTIES, INDIANA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - LINCOLN BOYHOOD NATIONAL MEMORIAL, SPENCER AND LINCOLN COUNTIES, INDIANA. AN - 36374563; 11562-050235_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial, Spencer County, Lincoln City, Indiana is proposed. The monument was designated by Congress in 1962 to preserve the site associated with the boyhood and family of President Abraham Lincoln, including a portion of the original Tom Lincoln farm and the nearby gravesite of Nancy Hanks Lincoln. The current general management plan is more than 20 years old and has reached the limit of its effective lifespan. 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 emphasize interpretive opportunities, with an emphasis on the history of the Lincoln family in southern Indiana and on the natural and sociopolitical environments of the times. The memorial building, which would continue to be used for interpretation and orientation purposes, along with the court, would remain largely unchanged, but an addition would be added to the rear of the structure. Where possible, some elements of the cloister could be returned to the original design. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would clearly define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved at the memorial; provide an updated framework for memorial managers when making decisions about the best means to protect memorial resources, to provide for a diverse range of visitor experience opportunities, and manage visitor use and memorial facilities; and ensure that this foundation for decision making has been developed in consultation with interested stakeholders and adopted by memorial leadership after an adequate analysis of the benefits, impacts, and economic costs of alternative courses of action. Visitors would be provided with an array of interpretive opportunities available to them, and the overall character of the experience would be interactive and educational. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a proposed addition behind the memorial building could result in the loss of 0.5 acre or less of vegetation, including trees and open field and disruption of soils over the same area. The restoration of the historic roadway to the east of the memorial building and the provision of overflow parking would remove tree seedlings that were recently planted. The closure of a portion of County Road 300 within the national memorial would reduce accessibility within the local area. 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 87-407. JF - EPA number: 050235, 128 pages, June 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-29 KW - Buildings KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Indiana KW - Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 87-407, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374563?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LINCOLN+BOYHOOD+NATIONAL+MEMORIAL%2C+SPENCER+AND+LINCOLN+COUNTIES%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=LINCOLN+BOYHOOD+NATIONAL+MEMORIAL%2C+SPENCER+AND+LINCOLN+COUNTIES%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LINCOLN BOYHOOD NATIONAL MEMORIAL, SPENCER AND LINCOLN COUNTIES, INDIANA. AN - 16358439; 11562 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial, Spencer County, Lincoln City, Indiana is proposed. The monument was designated by Congress in 1962 to preserve the site associated with the boyhood and family of President Abraham Lincoln, including a portion of the original Tom Lincoln farm and the nearby gravesite of Nancy Hanks Lincoln. The current general management plan is more than 20 years old and has reached the limit of its effective lifespan. 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 emphasize interpretive opportunities, with an emphasis on the history of the Lincoln family in southern Indiana and on the natural and sociopolitical environments of the times. The memorial building, which would continue to be used for interpretation and orientation purposes, along with the court, would remain largely unchanged, but an addition would be added to the rear of the structure. Where possible, some elements of the cloister could be returned to the original design. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would clearly define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved at the memorial; provide an updated framework for memorial managers when making decisions about the best means to protect memorial resources, to provide for a diverse range of visitor experience opportunities, and manage visitor use and memorial facilities; and ensure that this foundation for decision making has been developed in consultation with interested stakeholders and adopted by memorial leadership after an adequate analysis of the benefits, impacts, and economic costs of alternative courses of action. Visitors would be provided with an array of interpretive opportunities available to them, and the overall character of the experience would be interactive and educational. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a proposed addition behind the memorial building could result in the loss of 0.5 acre or less of vegetation, including trees and open field and disruption of soils over the same area. The restoration of the historic roadway to the east of the memorial building and the provision of overflow parking would remove tree seedlings that were recently planted. The closure of a portion of County Road 300 within the national memorial would reduce accessibility within the local area. 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 87-407. JF - EPA number: 050235, 128 pages, June 9, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-29 KW - Buildings KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Indiana KW - Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 87-407, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16358439?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LINCOLN+BOYHOOD+NATIONAL+MEMORIAL%2C+SPENCER+AND+LINCOLN+COUNTIES%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=LINCOLN+BOYHOOD+NATIONAL+MEMORIAL%2C+SPENCER+AND+LINCOLN+COUNTIES%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA COASTAL NATIONAL MONUMENT, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36436358; 11545 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan for the California Coastal National Monument (CCNM) is proposed. The monument, which was established by Presidential Proclamation, under the Antiquities Act of 1906, on January 11, 2000, consists of approximately 1,000 acres of rocks and small islands that stand above mean high tide within a vast 14,600-square-nautical-mile segment of the Pacific Ocean's continental shelf. The rocks and small islands along California's coast have been withheld from most land uses by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) since 1983 and from mineral exploration and recovery since 1930. Minimal management activity has been necessary over the past 10 years, and no comprehensive management plan has been developed for the area. Increasing pressure on coastal resources due to population growth, increasing levels of coastal activity, and the presence of wildlife species with very restricted habitat availability were among the reasons cites for the designation of the area as a monument. The CCNM is part of a recently established National Landscape Conservation System and is among the nation's most unique national monuments. The Presidential Proclamation directed the Secretary of the Interior to manage the monument through the BLM; hence, the BLM initiated the development of a management plan for the conservation and protection of the lands contained within the monument. Best management practices of consultation, communication, and cooperation's have been used throughout the planning process. Key issues addressed during scoping for the resource management plan include those associated with visual resources, wildlife habitat, vegetation, cultural sites, recreation resources, education and interpretation, research, special area designations, land tenure, land use authorizations, cadastral support, and geologic, soil, and paleontologic resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would balance management strategies considering better coordination of resource protection (focusing on seabirds and marine mammals), support for low-impact recreation, and the need for further research. Action Alternative B would emphasize strict natural and cultural resource protection across the entire CCNM, with recreational opportunities provided primarily through the use of state and local government facilities. Research would also be emphasized to enhance resource protection. Action Alternative 3 would promote a greater variety of active recreation o n and adjacent to the CCNM and active interpretation and environmental education programs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The resource management plan would establish guidance, objectives, policies, and management actions for the lands of the CCNM the plan would identify and attempt to resolve a wide range of resource and land use issues through a series of long- and short-term management practices that could be cooperative pursued by the BLM and its core management partners, namely, the appropriate state departments, as well as a much broader group of partner agencies and agencies with stewardship or regulatory interests in California's coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In effecting the directives of the Presidential Proclamation, the preferred alternative would continue to prohibit exploitative uses of CCNM lands and waters and prevent some recreational uses of the area as well. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0249D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050219, 551 pages and maps, June 1, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2005-0081790-1600 KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Fish KW - Geologic Sites KW - Islands KW - Marine Mammals KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reefs KW - Research KW - Shores KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - California Coastal National Monument KW - Pacific Ocean KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436358?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+COASTAL+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+COASTAL+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Monterey, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 90 SNOQUALMIE PASS EAST, KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - INTERSTATE 90 SNOQUALMIE PASS EAST, KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36371462; 050640D-050220_0001 AB - PURPOSE: THe improvement of a 15-mile section of Interstate 90 (-90), known as the Snoqualmie Pass East Project, in Kittitas County, Washington within the Wenatchee National Forest is proposed. The study area begins on the eastern side of Snoqualmie Pass at milepost 55.10 in Hayek 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 pots, 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 pat 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 Wenatchee 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 action, known as the Common Route Alternative, this draft 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 Alternative 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 Kechelus 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. Storm water 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 and 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.). JF - EPA number: 050220, 511 pages, June 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-05-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Creeks KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Lakes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments 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/36371462?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-01&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA COASTAL NATIONAL MONUMENT, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CALIFORNIA COASTAL NATIONAL MONUMENT, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36369551; 050495F-050219_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan for the California Coastal National Monument (CCNM) is proposed. The monument, which was established by Presidential Proclamation, under the Antiquities Act of 1906, on January 11, 2000, consists of approximately 1,000 acres of rocks and small islands that stand above mean high tide within a vast 14,600-square-nautical-mile segment of the Pacific Ocean's continental shelf. The rocks and small islands along California's coast have been withheld from most land uses by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) since 1983 and from mineral exploration and recovery since 1930. Minimal management activity has been necessary over the past 10 years, and no comprehensive management plan has been developed for the area. Increasing pressure on coastal resources due to population growth, increasing levels of coastal activity, and the presence of wildlife species with very restricted habitat availability were among the reasons cites for the designation of the area as a monument. The CCNM is part of a recently established National Landscape Conservation System and is among the nation's most unique national monuments. The Presidential Proclamation directed the Secretary of the Interior to manage the monument through the BLM; hence, the BLM initiated the development of a management plan for the conservation and protection of the lands contained within the monument. Best management practices of consultation, communication, and cooperation's have been used throughout the planning process. Key issues addressed during scoping for the resource management plan include those associated with visual resources, wildlife habitat, vegetation, cultural sites, recreation resources, education and interpretation, research, special area designations, land tenure, land use authorizations, cadastral support, and geologic, soil, and paleontologic resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would balance management strategies considering better coordination of resource protection (focusing on seabirds and marine mammals), support for low-impact recreation, and the need for further research. Action Alternative B would emphasize strict natural and cultural resource protection across the entire CCNM, with recreational opportunities provided primarily through the use of state and local government facilities. Research would also be emphasized to enhance resource protection. Action Alternative 3 would promote a greater variety of active recreation o n and adjacent to the CCNM and active interpretation and environmental education programs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The resource management plan would establish guidance, objectives, policies, and management actions for the lands of the CCNM the plan would identify and attempt to resolve a wide range of resource and land use issues through a series of long- and short-term management practices that could be cooperative pursued by the BLM and its core management partners, namely, the appropriate state departments, as well as a much broader group of partner agencies and agencies with stewardship or regulatory interests in California's coast. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In effecting the directives of the Presidential Proclamation, the preferred alternative would continue to prohibit exploitative uses of CCNM lands and waters and prevent some recreational uses of the area as well. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0249D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050219, 551 pages and maps, June 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2005-0081790-1600 KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Fish KW - Geologic Sites KW - Islands KW - Marine Mammals KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reefs KW - Research KW - Shores KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - California Coastal National Monument KW - Pacific Ocean KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369551?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+COASTAL+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+COASTAL+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Monterey, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 90 SNOQUALMIE PASS EAST, KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 16358331; 11546 AB - PURPOSE: THe improvement of a 15-mile section of Interstate 90 (-90), known as the Snoqualmie Pass East Project, in Kittitas County, Washington within the Wenatchee National Forest is proposed. The study area begins on the eastern side of Snoqualmie Pass at milepost 55.10 in Hayek 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 pots, 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 pat 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 Wenatchee 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 action, known as the Common Route Alternative, this draft 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 Alternative 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 Kechelus 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. Storm water 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 and 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.). JF - EPA number: 050220, 511 pages, June 1, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-05-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Creeks KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Lakes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments 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/16358331?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-01&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OJO CALIENTE TRANSMISSION LINE, CARSON NATIONAL FOREST AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT TAOS FIELD OFFICE, TAOS AND RIO ARRIBA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 36446076; 11544 AB - PURPOSE: The authorization of the construction and operation of an electrical transmission line by Kit Carson Electric Cooperative (KCEC) on property administered by the Carson National Forest and the Taos field office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Rio Arriba and Taos counties, New Mexico is proposed. The 115-kilovolt (kV) line would extend from the existing 115-kV line in the 115.345-kV corridor just north of Black Mesa to a proposed substation to be located on BLM lands north of the Ojo Caliente community. Besides serving the Ojo Caliente area, KCEC is responsible for serving other areas in Taos County. Electrical service has never been available to residents along a portion of US 285 between the existing 25-kV corridor and Tres Piedras. Service should also be provided to the residents along US 285. In addition to a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and the proposed action (Alternative B), two other alternatives and an option for a Tres Piedras Connection are analyzed in detail in this final EIS. Alternative C would tap into the existing 115-kV line in the 1115/345-kV corridor near Carson and run within the existing 25-kV corridor to the proposed substation on BLM lands near Ojo Caliente. Alternative D would tap into the existing 115kV line adjacent to Forest Road 285P, crossing U.S. 285 close to a 90-degree turn in the highway, then run parallel to US 285, at a distance of up to 0.5 mile north of the highway, to the proposed substation site near Ojo Caliente. The Tres Piedras Connection Option is not a standalone alternative; it would allow for the construction of a 25-kV distribution line in the vicinity of the microwave station just north of the intersection of New Mexico Route 567 and US 285 and connect into the existing line that extends south from Tres Piedras along US 285. The preferred alternatives has been identified as Alternative D with the Tres Piedras Connection Option. Estimated project construction and annual maintenance costs for Alternative D are estimated at $2.8 million and $6,700, respectively. Construction and annual maintenance costs associated with the option are estimated at $163,000 and $1,900, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line would provide adequate power delivery capacity for current ad gureu needs in the region, prevent power outages and fluctuations, and improve reliability and reduce line costs for all KCEC users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New rights-of-way development would disturb 39.7 acres of land and mar visual quality along new corridor sections. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0175D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050217, Executive Summary--50 pages, Record of Decision-- 24 pages, Final EIS--233 pages, May 27, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2005-0081790-1600 KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Carson National Forest KW - New Mexico KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36446076?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OJO+CALIENTE+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CARSON+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+TAOS+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+TAOS+AND+RIO+ARRIBA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=OJO+CALIENTE+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CARSON+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+TAOS+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+TAOS+AND+RIO+ARRIBA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Taos, New Mexico; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN LUIS DRAINAGE FEATURE RE-EVALUATION, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36435403; 11543 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of agricultural drainage services to the San Luis Unit of the San Joaquin Valley, California is proposed. The services would be provided in northwestern Kings County, western Fresno County, and southwestern Merced County. Systems in the northwestern tip of Kern County and in northern San Luis Obispo County and in Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties are also considered but rejected. The entire Drainage study area encompasses 730,000 acres, approximately 379,000 acres of which are drainage-impaired and constitute the drainage service area. Approximately 254,00 acres of this service area would have subsurface drainage systems installed, based on localize conditions and economic considerations, by the end of the 50-year planning horizon. Analysis indicates that this would maintain arability throughout the 379,000-acre drainage service area. . The San Joaquin Valley has struggled with groundwater salinity problems for several decades. Land retirement and in-valley disposal of shallow groundwater have been identified as the optimal methods of dealing with the issue. The Bureau of Reclamation has defined drainage service as the removal of water from irrigation fields to maintain long-term, sustainable salt/water balance in the root zone of irrigated lands where drainage service is defined as managing the regional shallow groundwater table by collecting and deposing of shallow groundwater from the root zone and/or reducing contributions of water to the shallow groundwater table through land retirement. A long-term sustainable salt and water balance is needed to ensure sustainable agriculture in the San Luis Unit and the region. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All of the alternatives would include on-farm and in-district actions, drain water collection systems, regional reuse facilities, the Firebaugh sumps, and land retirement of at least 44,106 acres. In addition to the common elements, the action alternatives, excepting the ocean disp0osal alternative, involve varying levels of drain water treatment (reverse osmosis and/or biological selenium treatments) and/or additional land retirement before disposal. The preferred alternative would involve implementing one of the following in-valley/water needs land retirement, in-valley/groundwater quality land retirement, or in-valley/drainage-impaired area land retirement or in-valley disposal combined with one or more of the land retirement alternatives. The present value of the in-valley disposal alternative is estimated at $561.8 million, while the present values of the in-valley land retirement alternatives range from $625.8 million to $857.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The drainage system would provide a complete drainage solution for the unit, from production through disposal ad would avoid a partial solution with undefined components. The drainage service implemented would be technically proven and cost-effective and provide drainage in a timely manner. Adverse impacts to the environment would be minimized. The services would allow for reuse of from 7,500 to 19,000 acres of land reuse. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent and temporary rights-of-way for the preferred alternatives would displace from 10 or 645 acres and four to 260 acres of land. Evaporation basin facilities would displace a maximum of 1,270 to 3,290 acres The selenium treatment facility would displace two to six acres and the reverse osmosis treatment facility would displace three to eight acres. Energy requirements for conveyance, reverse osmosis treatment, and selenium biotreatment would range from 2.5 million kilowatt-hours per year (kw-hr/yr), 6.6 million to 18.7 million kw-hr/yr, and 25,000 to 70,000 kw-hr/yr, respectively. In-valley disposal measures and land retirement alternatives could adversely affect habitat for the federally protected San Joaquin kit fox, American peregrine falcon, Swainson's hawk, and greater sandhill crane at reuse areas and evaporation basins by increasing selenium levels in dietary systems. Other waterbirds could be affected by processes and seasonal conditions at basins. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) and San Luis Act (P.L. 86-488). (P.L. 86-488). JF - EPA number: 050216, 872 pages and maps; CD-ROM, May 27, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 05-28 KW - Agriculture KW - Birds KW - Disposal KW - Drainage KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Soils Surveys KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Central Valley Project KW - California KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance KW - San Luis Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435403?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+LUIS+DRAINAGE+FEATURE+RE-EVALUATION%2C+SAN+JOAQUIN+VALLEY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+LUIS+DRAINAGE+FEATURE+RE-EVALUATION%2C+SAN+JOAQUIN+VALLEY%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OJO CALIENTE TRANSMISSION LINE, CARSON NATIONAL FOREST AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT TAOS FIELD OFFICE, TAOS AND RIO ARRIBA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - OJO CALIENTE TRANSMISSION LINE, CARSON NATIONAL FOREST AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT TAOS FIELD OFFICE, TAOS AND RIO ARRIBA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 36370396; 050556F-050217_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The authorization of the construction and operation of an electrical transmission line by Kit Carson Electric Cooperative (KCEC) on property administered by the Carson National Forest and the Taos field office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Rio Arriba and Taos counties, New Mexico is proposed. The 115-kilovolt (kV) line would extend from the existing 115-kV line in the 115.345-kV corridor just north of Black Mesa to a proposed substation to be located on BLM lands north of the Ojo Caliente community. Besides serving the Ojo Caliente area, KCEC is responsible for serving other areas in Taos County. Electrical service has never been available to residents along a portion of US 285 between the existing 25-kV corridor and Tres Piedras. Service should also be provided to the residents along US 285. In addition to a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and the proposed action (Alternative B), two other alternatives and an option for a Tres Piedras Connection are analyzed in detail in this final EIS. Alternative C would tap into the existing 115-kV line in the 1115/345-kV corridor near Carson and run within the existing 25-kV corridor to the proposed substation on BLM lands near Ojo Caliente. Alternative D would tap into the existing 115kV line adjacent to Forest Road 285P, crossing U.S. 285 close to a 90-degree turn in the highway, then run parallel to US 285, at a distance of up to 0.5 mile north of the highway, to the proposed substation site near Ojo Caliente. The Tres Piedras Connection Option is not a standalone alternative; it would allow for the construction of a 25-kV distribution line in the vicinity of the microwave station just north of the intersection of New Mexico Route 567 and US 285 and connect into the existing line that extends south from Tres Piedras along US 285. The preferred alternatives has been identified as Alternative D with the Tres Piedras Connection Option. Estimated project construction and annual maintenance costs for Alternative D are estimated at $2.8 million and $6,700, respectively. Construction and annual maintenance costs associated with the option are estimated at $163,000 and $1,900, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line would provide adequate power delivery capacity for current ad gureu needs in the region, prevent power outages and fluctuations, and improve reliability and reduce line costs for all KCEC users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New rights-of-way development would disturb 39.7 acres of land and mar visual quality along new corridor sections. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0175D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050217, Executive Summary--50 pages, Record of Decision-- 24 pages, Final EIS--233 pages, May 27, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2005-0081790-1600 KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Carson National Forest KW - New Mexico KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370396?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OJO+CALIENTE+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CARSON+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+TAOS+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+TAOS+AND+RIO+ARRIBA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=OJO+CALIENTE+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CARSON+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+TAOS+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+TAOS+AND+RIO+ARRIBA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Taos, New Mexico; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OJO CALIENTE TRANSMISSION LINE, CARSON NATIONAL FOREST AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT TAOS FIELD OFFICE, TAOS AND RIO ARRIBA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - OJO CALIENTE TRANSMISSION LINE, CARSON NATIONAL FOREST AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT TAOS FIELD OFFICE, TAOS AND RIO ARRIBA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 36370373; 050556F-050217_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The authorization of the construction and operation of an electrical transmission line by Kit Carson Electric Cooperative (KCEC) on property administered by the Carson National Forest and the Taos field office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Rio Arriba and Taos counties, New Mexico is proposed. The 115-kilovolt (kV) line would extend from the existing 115-kV line in the 115.345-kV corridor just north of Black Mesa to a proposed substation to be located on BLM lands north of the Ojo Caliente community. Besides serving the Ojo Caliente area, KCEC is responsible for serving other areas in Taos County. Electrical service has never been available to residents along a portion of US 285 between the existing 25-kV corridor and Tres Piedras. Service should also be provided to the residents along US 285. In addition to a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and the proposed action (Alternative B), two other alternatives and an option for a Tres Piedras Connection are analyzed in detail in this final EIS. Alternative C would tap into the existing 115-kV line in the 1115/345-kV corridor near Carson and run within the existing 25-kV corridor to the proposed substation on BLM lands near Ojo Caliente. Alternative D would tap into the existing 115kV line adjacent to Forest Road 285P, crossing U.S. 285 close to a 90-degree turn in the highway, then run parallel to US 285, at a distance of up to 0.5 mile north of the highway, to the proposed substation site near Ojo Caliente. The Tres Piedras Connection Option is not a standalone alternative; it would allow for the construction of a 25-kV distribution line in the vicinity of the microwave station just north of the intersection of New Mexico Route 567 and US 285 and connect into the existing line that extends south from Tres Piedras along US 285. The preferred alternatives has been identified as Alternative D with the Tres Piedras Connection Option. Estimated project construction and annual maintenance costs for Alternative D are estimated at $2.8 million and $6,700, respectively. Construction and annual maintenance costs associated with the option are estimated at $163,000 and $1,900, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line would provide adequate power delivery capacity for current ad gureu needs in the region, prevent power outages and fluctuations, and improve reliability and reduce line costs for all KCEC users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New rights-of-way development would disturb 39.7 acres of land and mar visual quality along new corridor sections. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0175D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050217, Executive Summary--50 pages, Record of Decision-- 24 pages, Final EIS--233 pages, May 27, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2005-0081790-1600 KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Carson National Forest KW - New Mexico KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370373?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OJO+CALIENTE+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CARSON+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+TAOS+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+TAOS+AND+RIO+ARRIBA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=OJO+CALIENTE+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CARSON+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+TAOS+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+TAOS+AND+RIO+ARRIBA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Taos, New Mexico; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OJO CALIENTE TRANSMISSION LINE, CARSON NATIONAL FOREST AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT TAOS FIELD OFFICE, TAOS AND RIO ARRIBA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - OJO CALIENTE TRANSMISSION LINE, CARSON NATIONAL FOREST AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT TAOS FIELD OFFICE, TAOS AND RIO ARRIBA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 36370267; 050556F-050217_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The authorization of the construction and operation of an electrical transmission line by Kit Carson Electric Cooperative (KCEC) on property administered by the Carson National Forest and the Taos field office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Rio Arriba and Taos counties, New Mexico is proposed. The 115-kilovolt (kV) line would extend from the existing 115-kV line in the 115.345-kV corridor just north of Black Mesa to a proposed substation to be located on BLM lands north of the Ojo Caliente community. Besides serving the Ojo Caliente area, KCEC is responsible for serving other areas in Taos County. Electrical service has never been available to residents along a portion of US 285 between the existing 25-kV corridor and Tres Piedras. Service should also be provided to the residents along US 285. In addition to a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and the proposed action (Alternative B), two other alternatives and an option for a Tres Piedras Connection are analyzed in detail in this final EIS. Alternative C would tap into the existing 115-kV line in the 1115/345-kV corridor near Carson and run within the existing 25-kV corridor to the proposed substation on BLM lands near Ojo Caliente. Alternative D would tap into the existing 115kV line adjacent to Forest Road 285P, crossing U.S. 285 close to a 90-degree turn in the highway, then run parallel to US 285, at a distance of up to 0.5 mile north of the highway, to the proposed substation site near Ojo Caliente. The Tres Piedras Connection Option is not a standalone alternative; it would allow for the construction of a 25-kV distribution line in the vicinity of the microwave station just north of the intersection of New Mexico Route 567 and US 285 and connect into the existing line that extends south from Tres Piedras along US 285. The preferred alternatives has been identified as Alternative D with the Tres Piedras Connection Option. Estimated project construction and annual maintenance costs for Alternative D are estimated at $2.8 million and $6,700, respectively. Construction and annual maintenance costs associated with the option are estimated at $163,000 and $1,900, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission line would provide adequate power delivery capacity for current ad gureu needs in the region, prevent power outages and fluctuations, and improve reliability and reduce line costs for all KCEC users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New rights-of-way development would disturb 39.7 acres of land and mar visual quality along new corridor sections. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0175D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050217, Executive Summary--50 pages, Record of Decision-- 24 pages, Final EIS--233 pages, May 27, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2005-0081790-1600 KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Carson National Forest KW - New Mexico KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370267?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OJO+CALIENTE+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CARSON+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+TAOS+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+TAOS+AND+RIO+ARRIBA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=OJO+CALIENTE+TRANSMISSION+LINE%2C+CARSON+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+TAOS+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+TAOS+AND+RIO+ARRIBA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Taos, New Mexico; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 27, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN LUIS DRAINAGE FEATURE RE-EVALUATION, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SAN LUIS DRAINAGE FEATURE RE-EVALUATION, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36368934; 050494D-050216_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of agricultural drainage services to the San Luis Unit of the San Joaquin Valley, California is proposed. The services would be provided in northwestern Kings County, western Fresno County, and southwestern Merced County. Systems in the northwestern tip of Kern County and in northern San Luis Obispo County and in Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties are also considered but rejected. The entire Drainage study area encompasses 730,000 acres, approximately 379,000 acres of which are drainage-impaired and constitute the drainage service area. Approximately 254,00 acres of this service area would have subsurface drainage systems installed, based on localize conditions and economic considerations, by the end of the 50-year planning horizon. Analysis indicates that this would maintain arability throughout the 379,000-acre drainage service area. . The San Joaquin Valley has struggled with groundwater salinity problems for several decades. Land retirement and in-valley disposal of shallow groundwater have been identified as the optimal methods of dealing with the issue. The Bureau of Reclamation has defined drainage service as the removal of water from irrigation fields to maintain long-term, sustainable salt/water balance in the root zone of irrigated lands where drainage service is defined as managing the regional shallow groundwater table by collecting and deposing of shallow groundwater from the root zone and/or reducing contributions of water to the shallow groundwater table through land retirement. A long-term sustainable salt and water balance is needed to ensure sustainable agriculture in the San Luis Unit and the region. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All of the alternatives would include on-farm and in-district actions, drain water collection systems, regional reuse facilities, the Firebaugh sumps, and land retirement of at least 44,106 acres. In addition to the common elements, the action alternatives, excepting the ocean disp0osal alternative, involve varying levels of drain water treatment (reverse osmosis and/or biological selenium treatments) and/or additional land retirement before disposal. The preferred alternative would involve implementing one of the following in-valley/water needs land retirement, in-valley/groundwater quality land retirement, or in-valley/drainage-impaired area land retirement or in-valley disposal combined with one or more of the land retirement alternatives. The present value of the in-valley disposal alternative is estimated at $561.8 million, while the present values of the in-valley land retirement alternatives range from $625.8 million to $857.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The drainage system would provide a complete drainage solution for the unit, from production through disposal ad would avoid a partial solution with undefined components. The drainage service implemented would be technically proven and cost-effective and provide drainage in a timely manner. Adverse impacts to the environment would be minimized. The services would allow for reuse of from 7,500 to 19,000 acres of land reuse. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent and temporary rights-of-way for the preferred alternatives would displace from 10 or 645 acres and four to 260 acres of land. Evaporation basin facilities would displace a maximum of 1,270 to 3,290 acres The selenium treatment facility would displace two to six acres and the reverse osmosis treatment facility would displace three to eight acres. Energy requirements for conveyance, reverse osmosis treatment, and selenium biotreatment would range from 2.5 million kilowatt-hours per year (kw-hr/yr), 6.6 million to 18.7 million kw-hr/yr, and 25,000 to 70,000 kw-hr/yr, respectively. In-valley disposal measures and land retirement alternatives could adversely affect habitat for the federally protected San Joaquin kit fox, American peregrine falcon, Swainson's hawk, and greater sandhill crane at reuse areas and evaporation basins by increasing selenium levels in dietary systems. Other waterbirds could be affected by processes and seasonal conditions at basins. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) and San Luis Act (P.L. 86-488). (P.L. 86-488). JF - EPA number: 050216, 872 pages and maps; CD-ROM, May 27, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 05-28 KW - Agriculture KW - Birds KW - Disposal KW - Drainage KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Soils Surveys KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Central Valley Project KW - California KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance KW - San Luis Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+LUIS+DRAINAGE+FEATURE+RE-EVALUATION%2C+SAN+JOAQUIN+VALLEY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+LUIS+DRAINAGE+FEATURE+RE-EVALUATION%2C+SAN+JOAQUIN+VALLEY%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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 27, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SERVICE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - SERVICE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING. AN - 36379707; 050550D-050209_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 maintain 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 transportation study was conducted to identify actions that would improve visitor experience and mobility, reduce the potential for congestion n 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. 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 provide for a mix of multi-use pathways and improved roadway shoulders, targeted toward cyclists and pedestrians. 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 ridership and public acceptance of transit options. Total capital cost for implementation of the preferred alternative is estimated at $29.1 million, and the annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $595,500. 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. JF - EPA number: 050209, 284 pages, May 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-27 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks 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/36379707?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SERVICE+TRANSPORTATION+PLAN%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+MOOSE%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=SERVICE+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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2005 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 1] T2 - ROCK CREEK INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PROJECT, YAMPA RANGER DISTRICT, MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL FOREST, ROUTT AND GRAND COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 36372585; 050551D-050210_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 lodgepole 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 draft 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 lodgepole 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 over 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. Roadless 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.). JF - EPA number: 050210, 221 pages, May 25, 2005 PY - 2005 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/36372585?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-25&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SERVICE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - SERVICE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING. AN - 36372550; 050550D-050209_0004 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 maintain 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 transportation study was conducted to identify actions that would improve visitor experience and mobility, reduce the potential for congestion n 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. 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 provide for a mix of multi-use pathways and improved roadway shoulders, targeted toward cyclists and pedestrians. 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 ridership and public acceptance of transit options. Total capital cost for implementation of the preferred alternative is estimated at $29.1 million, and the annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $595,500. 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. JF - EPA number: 050209, 284 pages, May 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-27 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks 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/36372550?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SERVICE+TRANSPORTATION+PLAN%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+MOOSE%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=SERVICE+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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CRATER LAKE NATIONAL PARK, KLAMATH, JACKSON, AND DOUGLAS COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CRATER LAKE NATIONAL PARK, KLAMATH, JACKSON, AND DOUGLAS COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 36372163; 050557F-050218_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the comprehensive management plan for Crater Lake National Park, Klamath, Jackson, and Douglas counties, Oregon is proposed. The park lies in southwest Oregon in the south-central portion of the Cascade Range. Near the center off the park lies the park's most spectacular resource, Crater Lake. The caldera lake is 1,943 feet deep, the deepest lake in the United States. The existing management plan was adopted in 1977. Much has changed since then, including visitor use patterns and demographics, demands for various recreational experiences and activities, and the addition of 22,400 acres to the park. Each of these changes has implications for how visitors access and use the park and the facilities needed to support those uses, manage resources, and manage National Park Service operations. The newly proposed plan would provide management guidelines to be used for the next 15 to 20 years. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would focus on increased opportunities in recreational diversity and resource education. Most existing recreational opportunities would remain, but new opportunities along Rim Drive would allow visitors to directly experience the primary resource of Crater Lake in ways other than driving. Any new uses around the rim would be nonmotorized and low impact. Opportunities to experience the lake by hiking and biking in a quieter setting would be explored via experimental seasonal road closures of East Rim Drive. Other front country opportunities, such as short trails and picnic areas, would be along the roadways. These new opportunities would provide transitional experiences between the developed areas (or transportation corridors) and the backcountry and also provide for enhanced interpretation, new research opportunities, and access to the backcountry. Winter snowmobile and show coach access would remain along North Junction to the rim. A new science and learning center would form the core of the new research initiative. The park would expand and encourage partnerships with universities, scientists, and educational groups. Parking shortfalls and road congestion would be managed by improving existing pullouts, parking areas, and overlooks. Shuttles and other alternative transportation systems could be implemented. Additional funding for specific currently authorized projects would amount to $4.7 million, $943,000 more than the No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would significantly increase visitor opportunities for recreation, education, and interpretation. Access to park facilities and services would be enhanced. Museum collections would be improved and provided with better protection. Increased staffing and other operational changes would improve resource management within the park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of the superintendent's residence would result in some loss of the historic character of the building. Research and educational activities could result in some moderate adverse impacts to some federally protected species. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 32 Stat. 20. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0077D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050218, 282 pages, May 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cost Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Geologic Sites KW - Historic Sites KW - Lakes KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Museums KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Volcanoes KW - Crater Lake National Park KW - Oregon KW - Public Law 32 Stat. 20, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372163?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+CRATER+LAKE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+KLAMATH%2C+JACKSON%2C+AND+DOUGLAS+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+CRATER+LAKE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+KLAMATH%2C+JACKSON%2C+AND+DOUGLAS+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SERVICE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - SERVICE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING. AN - 36371756; 050550D-050209_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 maintain 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 transportation study was conducted to identify actions that would improve visitor experience and mobility, reduce the potential for congestion n 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. 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 provide for a mix of multi-use pathways and improved roadway shoulders, targeted toward cyclists and pedestrians. 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 ridership and public acceptance of transit options. Total capital cost for implementation of the preferred alternative is estimated at $29.1 million, and the annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $595,500. 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. JF - EPA number: 050209, 284 pages, May 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-27 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks 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/36371756?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SERVICE+TRANSPORTATION+PLAN%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+MOOSE%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=SERVICE+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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SERVICE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - SERVICE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING. AN - 36371504; 050550D-050209_0006 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 maintain 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 transportation study was conducted to identify actions that would improve visitor experience and mobility, reduce the potential for congestion n 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. 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 provide for a mix of multi-use pathways and improved roadway shoulders, targeted toward cyclists and pedestrians. 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 ridership and public acceptance of transit options. Total capital cost for implementation of the preferred alternative is estimated at $29.1 million, and the annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $595,500. 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. JF - EPA number: 050209, 284 pages, May 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-27 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks 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/36371504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SERVICE+TRANSPORTATION+PLAN%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+MOOSE%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=SERVICE+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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SERVICE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - SERVICE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING. AN - 36370888; 050550D-050209_0005 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 maintain 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 transportation study was conducted to identify actions that would improve visitor experience and mobility, reduce the potential for congestion n 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. 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 provide for a mix of multi-use pathways and improved roadway shoulders, targeted toward cyclists and pedestrians. 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 ridership and public acceptance of transit options. Total capital cost for implementation of the preferred alternative is estimated at $29.1 million, and the annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $595,500. 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. JF - EPA number: 050209, 284 pages, May 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-27 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks 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/36370888?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SERVICE+TRANSPORTATION+PLAN%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+MOOSE%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=SERVICE+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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SERVICE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - SERVICE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING. AN - 36370309; 050550D-050209_0008 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 maintain 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 transportation study was conducted to identify actions that would improve visitor experience and mobility, reduce the potential for congestion n 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. 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 provide for a mix of multi-use pathways and improved roadway shoulders, targeted toward cyclists and pedestrians. 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 ridership and public acceptance of transit options. Total capital cost for implementation of the preferred alternative is estimated at $29.1 million, and the annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $595,500. 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. JF - EPA number: 050209, 284 pages, May 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-27 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks 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/36370309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SERVICE+TRANSPORTATION+PLAN%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+MOOSE%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=SERVICE+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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SERVICE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - SERVICE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING. AN - 36369521; 050550D-050209_0003 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 maintain 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 transportation study was conducted to identify actions that would improve visitor experience and mobility, reduce the potential for congestion n 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. 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 provide for a mix of multi-use pathways and improved roadway shoulders, targeted toward cyclists and pedestrians. 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 ridership and public acceptance of transit options. Total capital cost for implementation of the preferred alternative is estimated at $29.1 million, and the annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $595,500. 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. JF - EPA number: 050209, 284 pages, May 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-27 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks 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/36369521?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SERVICE+TRANSPORTATION+PLAN%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+MOOSE%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=SERVICE+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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SERVICE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - SERVICE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING. AN - 36369013; 050550D-050209_0007 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 maintain 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 transportation study was conducted to identify actions that would improve visitor experience and mobility, reduce the potential for congestion n 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. 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 provide for a mix of multi-use pathways and improved roadway shoulders, targeted toward cyclists and pedestrians. 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 ridership and public acceptance of transit options. Total capital cost for implementation of the preferred alternative is estimated at $29.1 million, and the annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $595,500. 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. JF - EPA number: 050209, 284 pages, May 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-27 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks 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/36369013?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SERVICE+TRANSPORTATION+PLAN%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+MOOSE%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=SERVICE+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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CRATER LAKE NATIONAL PARK, KLAMATH, JACKSON, AND DOUGLAS COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 16358549; 11557 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the comprehensive management plan for Crater Lake National Park, Klamath, Jackson, and Douglas counties, Oregon is proposed. The park lies in southwest Oregon in the south-central portion of the Cascade Range. Near the center off the park lies the park's most spectacular resource, Crater Lake. The caldera lake is 1,943 feet deep, the deepest lake in the United States. The existing management plan was adopted in 1977. Much has changed since then, including visitor use patterns and demographics, demands for various recreational experiences and activities, and the addition of 22,400 acres to the park. Each of these changes has implications for how visitors access and use the park and the facilities needed to support those uses, manage resources, and manage National Park Service operations. The newly proposed plan would provide management guidelines to be used for the next 15 to 20 years. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would focus on increased opportunities in recreational diversity and resource education. Most existing recreational opportunities would remain, but new opportunities along Rim Drive would allow visitors to directly experience the primary resource of Crater Lake in ways other than driving. Any new uses around the rim would be nonmotorized and low impact. Opportunities to experience the lake by hiking and biking in a quieter setting would be explored via experimental seasonal road closures of East Rim Drive. Other front country opportunities, such as short trails and picnic areas, would be along the roadways. These new opportunities would provide transitional experiences between the developed areas (or transportation corridors) and the backcountry and also provide for enhanced interpretation, new research opportunities, and access to the backcountry. Winter snowmobile and show coach access would remain along North Junction to the rim. A new science and learning center would form the core of the new research initiative. The park would expand and encourage partnerships with universities, scientists, and educational groups. Parking shortfalls and road congestion would be managed by improving existing pullouts, parking areas, and overlooks. Shuttles and other alternative transportation systems could be implemented. Additional funding for specific currently authorized projects would amount to $4.7 million, $943,000 more than the No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would significantly increase visitor opportunities for recreation, education, and interpretation. Access to park facilities and services would be enhanced. Museum collections would be improved and provided with better protection. Increased staffing and other operational changes would improve resource management within the park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of the superintendent's residence would result in some loss of the historic character of the building. Research and educational activities could result in some moderate adverse impacts to some federally protected species. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 32 Stat. 20. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0077D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050218, 282 pages, May 25, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cost Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Geologic Sites KW - Historic Sites KW - Lakes KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Museums KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Volcanoes KW - Crater Lake National Park KW - Oregon KW - Public Law 32 Stat. 20, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16358549?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+CRATER+LAKE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+KLAMATH%2C+JACKSON%2C+AND+DOUGLAS+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+CRATER+LAKE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+KLAMATH%2C+JACKSON%2C+AND+DOUGLAS+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2005 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. AN - 16356477; 11537 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 lodgepole 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 draft 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 lodgepole 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 over 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. Roadless 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.). JF - EPA number: 050210, 221 pages, May 25, 2005 PY - 2005 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/16356477?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SERVICE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, TETON COUNTY, MOOSE, WYOMING. AN - 16356427; 11536 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 maintain 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 transportation study was conducted to identify actions that would improve visitor experience and mobility, reduce the potential for congestion n 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. 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 provide for a mix of multi-use pathways and improved roadway shoulders, targeted toward cyclists and pedestrians. 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 ridership and public acceptance of transit options. Total capital cost for implementation of the preferred alternative is estimated at $29.1 million, and the annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $595,500. 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. JF - EPA number: 050209, 284 pages, May 25, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-27 KW - Cost Assessments KW - National Parks 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/16356427?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SERVICE+TRANSPORTATION+PLAN%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+MOOSE%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=SERVICE+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 10 of 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36379553; 050687D-050203_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36379553?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 7 of 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36379452; 050687D-050203_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36379452?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 23 of 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36372769; 050687D-050203_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36372769?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 17 of 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36372707; 050687D-050203_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36372707?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 14 of 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36372464; 050687D-050203_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36372464?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 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 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36372346; 050687D-050203_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36372346?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 12 of 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36371687; 050687D-050203_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36371687?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 21 of 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36371657; 050687D-050203_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 21 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36371657?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 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 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36371626; 050687D-050203_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36371626?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 19 of 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36371560; 050687D-050203_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36371560?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 15 of 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36371493; 050687D-050203_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36371493?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 11 of 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36371172; 050687D-050203_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36371172?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 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 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36371052; 050687D-050203_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36371052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 22 of 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36370936; 050687D-050203_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 22 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36370936?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 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 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36370605; 050687D-050203_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36370605?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 20 of 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36370462; 050687D-050203_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36370462?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 9 of 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36370434; 050687D-050203_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36370434?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 18 of 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36370412; 050687D-050203_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36370412?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 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 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36370210; 050687D-050203_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36370210?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 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 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36370154; 050687D-050203_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36370154?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 8 of 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36369360; 050687D-050203_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36369360?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 13 of 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36369277; 050687D-050203_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36369277?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 16 of 23] T2 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 36369251; 050687D-050203_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, May 20, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/36369251?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-20&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BURR TRAIL MODIFICATIONS, CAPITOL REEF NATIONAL PARK, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36435623; 11523 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of modifications to the roads transportation system associated with the Burr Trail within Capitol Reef National Park, Garfield County, Utah is proposed. The park, located in south-central Utah, is known for its sedimentary formations, cliffs, monoliths, and a abundance of canyons. The Burr Trail is a 66-mile back country road that passes through lands administered by the National park Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Approximately 8.4 miles of the trail passes through the southern portion of Capitol Reef National Park. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Three of the alternatives would involve road modifications to stabilize parts of the road surfaces using gravel-based material (some with geotextile fabric), install or improve drainage facilities at creek crossings, modify the road at mile post 0.65 to accommodate two-way traffic, and install slope protection along portions of the northmen bank of Sandy Creek. The proposed action would modify a one-mile segment of the Burr Trail and address drainage concerns at the Burr Trail/Halls Creek crossing and at a drainage that crosses the road near the base of the switchbacks in Burr Canyon. The one-mile segment of road under consideration extends from the eastern park boundary to The Post. Based on the park's 1998 general management plan, Capital Reef National Park provides three justifications for the proposed action. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would emphasize maintenance of the rustic character of the road, minimizing disturbance to the environment and integrating the visitor with the surrounding landscape. A prominent overhanging rock at mile post 0.65, which is a local landmark but which restricts the road to less than two lanes, would be left in place. Additional width for a two-lane road at this point would be obtained by expanding the roadside ditch toward the rock and adding a rock embankment on the south road bank adjacent to Sandy Creek. This would preserve the geological feature and landforms. Other minor changes to the road surface and drainage features would also be undertaken. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed road modifications and improvements would provide for safe travel on an all-weather, well maintained, variable-width, unpaved gravel and native material roadway, acknowledging that the road would be occasionally impassible due to weather conditions; retain the winding nature and adventuresome character of the Burr Trail through the park; and protected the natural and cultural setting of the park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in travel delays for visitors to the park. Construction activities and road widening in some places would destroy vegetation and displace soils. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 2246 of August 2, 1937 (50 Stat. 1856). JF - EPA number: 050196, 283 pages, May 13, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-24 KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Weather KW - Capitol Reef National Park KW - Utah KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 2246, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435623?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BURR+TRAIL+MODIFICATIONS%2C+CAPITOL+REEF+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BURR+TRAIL+MODIFICATIONS%2C+CAPITOL+REEF+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Torrey, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 13, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BURR TRAIL MODIFICATIONS, CAPITOL REEF NATIONAL PARK, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - BURR TRAIL MODIFICATIONS, CAPITOL REEF NATIONAL PARK, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36370129; 050543D-050196_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of modifications to the roads transportation system associated with the Burr Trail within Capitol Reef National Park, Garfield County, Utah is proposed. The park, located in south-central Utah, is known for its sedimentary formations, cliffs, monoliths, and a abundance of canyons. The Burr Trail is a 66-mile back country road that passes through lands administered by the National park Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Approximately 8.4 miles of the trail passes through the southern portion of Capitol Reef National Park. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Three of the alternatives would involve road modifications to stabilize parts of the road surfaces using gravel-based material (some with geotextile fabric), install or improve drainage facilities at creek crossings, modify the road at mile post 0.65 to accommodate two-way traffic, and install slope protection along portions of the northmen bank of Sandy Creek. The proposed action would modify a one-mile segment of the Burr Trail and address drainage concerns at the Burr Trail/Halls Creek crossing and at a drainage that crosses the road near the base of the switchbacks in Burr Canyon. The one-mile segment of road under consideration extends from the eastern park boundary to The Post. Based on the park's 1998 general management plan, Capital Reef National Park provides three justifications for the proposed action. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would emphasize maintenance of the rustic character of the road, minimizing disturbance to the environment and integrating the visitor with the surrounding landscape. A prominent overhanging rock at mile post 0.65, which is a local landmark but which restricts the road to less than two lanes, would be left in place. Additional width for a two-lane road at this point would be obtained by expanding the roadside ditch toward the rock and adding a rock embankment on the south road bank adjacent to Sandy Creek. This would preserve the geological feature and landforms. Other minor changes to the road surface and drainage features would also be undertaken. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed road modifications and improvements would provide for safe travel on an all-weather, well maintained, variable-width, unpaved gravel and native material roadway, acknowledging that the road would be occasionally impassible due to weather conditions; retain the winding nature and adventuresome character of the Burr Trail through the park; and protected the natural and cultural setting of the park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in travel delays for visitors to the park. Construction activities and road widening in some places would destroy vegetation and displace soils. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 2246 of August 2, 1937 (50 Stat. 1856). JF - EPA number: 050196, 283 pages, May 13, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-24 KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Weather KW - Capitol Reef National Park KW - Utah KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 2246, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370129?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BURR+TRAIL+MODIFICATIONS%2C+CAPITOL+REEF+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=BURR+TRAIL+MODIFICATIONS%2C+CAPITOL+REEF+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Torrey, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 13, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH VALLEYS RIGHTS-OF-WAY PROJECTS, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36435082; 11522 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way for the installation of water pipelines across public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Washoe County, Nevada is proposed. Rights-of-way applications for the water transmission pipelines were submitted by Fish Spring Ranch, LLC and Intermountain Water Supply Ltd. Each applicant is proposing to construct and operate water supply and transmission projects to meet present and future water demands of the Stead/Silver Lake/Lemon Valley areas, collectively known as North Valleys. The project area is generally located approximately 15 to 35 miles north of Reno The projects would involve installation and operation of wellheads, electrical distribution lines, water pipelines, pumping stations, surge tanks, and a terminal water storage tank. In addition, the Fish Springs Ranch would construction an electrical substation on private land adjacent to the Alturas 345-kilovolt transmission line in Honey Lake Valley. Intermountain Water Supply's proposal would include installation of wells and construction of a pump station and storage tanks on public land. The Fish Springs Ranch system would convey u to 8,000 are-feet per year from six wells on Fish Springs Ranch property. The pipeline would extend 28 miles from the pump station to the terminal tank site between Lemmon Valley and Antelope Valley. The Intermountain Water Supply project would convey up to 3,500 acre-feet per year from two wells located in Dry Valley and one in Bedell Flat, and antelope Valley and proceed south 24 miles to a terminus near Stead. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to surface and groundwater resource impacts from the pumping of groundwater, the impacts of groundwater extraction on vegetation and wildlife habitat, and cumulative impacts of water importation on regional development. In addition to the applicants' proposals, a No Action Alternative and one action alternative are addressed in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would allow for construction of both pipelines within a common rights-of-way. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new source of water supply would support current and planned development, including residential and industrial development, in the North Valleys planning area. The availability of water in this area is called for in the Waashoe County and Reno master plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic activity could rupture pipelines or damage related facilities. Removal of groundwater from Honey Lake Valley and Dry Valley and Bedell Flat could result in groundwater table and stream flow dropdowns and alter salinity levels in both water source types. Distribution and use of water from pumping wells could increase, and groundwater recharge from septic systems and nitrate loading in groundwater would increase. Additional development allowed by the availability of water would result in further destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat as well as disturbance of soils and the resultant erosion and sedimentation of surface water flows. Sagebrush, grassland, and juniper woodland communities would be affected during construction and due to removal of groundwater. The projects would result in 620 acres of surface disturbance, of which 358 would occur on public lands. Two properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places lie within the rights-of-way, and nine other eligible properties lie within the area of potential effect. Six cultural sites located within the area of potential effect may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register. 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: 050195, 227 pages and maps, May 12, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/CC/PL-05/016+2800 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Power KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Nevada 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/36435082?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+VALLEYS+RIGHTS-OF-WAY+PROJECTS%2C+WASHOE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=NORTH+VALLEYS+RIGHTS-OF-WAY+PROJECTS%2C+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, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH VALLEYS RIGHTS-OF-WAY PROJECTS, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - NORTH VALLEYS RIGHTS-OF-WAY PROJECTS, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36370516; 050686D-050195_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way for the installation of water pipelines across public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Washoe County, Nevada is proposed. Rights-of-way applications for the water transmission pipelines were submitted by Fish Spring Ranch, LLC and Intermountain Water Supply Ltd. Each applicant is proposing to construct and operate water supply and transmission projects to meet present and future water demands of the Stead/Silver Lake/Lemon Valley areas, collectively known as North Valleys. The project area is generally located approximately 15 to 35 miles north of Reno The projects would involve installation and operation of wellheads, electrical distribution lines, water pipelines, pumping stations, surge tanks, and a terminal water storage tank. In addition, the Fish Springs Ranch would construction an electrical substation on private land adjacent to the Alturas 345-kilovolt transmission line in Honey Lake Valley. Intermountain Water Supply's proposal would include installation of wells and construction of a pump station and storage tanks on public land. The Fish Springs Ranch system would convey u to 8,000 are-feet per year from six wells on Fish Springs Ranch property. The pipeline would extend 28 miles from the pump station to the terminal tank site between Lemmon Valley and Antelope Valley. The Intermountain Water Supply project would convey up to 3,500 acre-feet per year from two wells located in Dry Valley and one in Bedell Flat, and antelope Valley and proceed south 24 miles to a terminus near Stead. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to surface and groundwater resource impacts from the pumping of groundwater, the impacts of groundwater extraction on vegetation and wildlife habitat, and cumulative impacts of water importation on regional development. In addition to the applicants' proposals, a No Action Alternative and one action alternative are addressed in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would allow for construction of both pipelines within a common rights-of-way. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new source of water supply would support current and planned development, including residential and industrial development, in the North Valleys planning area. The availability of water in this area is called for in the Waashoe County and Reno master plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic activity could rupture pipelines or damage related facilities. Removal of groundwater from Honey Lake Valley and Dry Valley and Bedell Flat could result in groundwater table and stream flow dropdowns and alter salinity levels in both water source types. Distribution and use of water from pumping wells could increase, and groundwater recharge from septic systems and nitrate loading in groundwater would increase. Additional development allowed by the availability of water would result in further destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat as well as disturbance of soils and the resultant erosion and sedimentation of surface water flows. Sagebrush, grassland, and juniper woodland communities would be affected during construction and due to removal of groundwater. The projects would result in 620 acres of surface disturbance, of which 358 would occur on public lands. Two properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places lie within the rights-of-way, and nine other eligible properties lie within the area of potential effect. Six cultural sites located within the area of potential effect may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register. 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: 050195, 227 pages and maps, May 12, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/CC/PL-05/016+2800 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Power KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Nevada 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/36370516?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+VALLEYS+RIGHTS-OF-WAY+PROJECTS%2C+WASHOE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=NORTH+VALLEYS+RIGHTS-OF-WAY+PROJECTS%2C+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, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEBER DAM REPAIR AND MODIFICATION PROJECT, LYON AND MINERAL COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 36447034; 11520 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation and modification of the Weber Dam on the Walker River in Lyon and Mineral counties, Nevada is proposed. The Weber Dam is a small earthen structure on the Walker River Paiute Indian Reservation in western Nevada that impounds the waters of a stream that originates in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and terminates at Walker Lake. The dam is operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to provide irrigation water to the reservation. The major portion of the dam was build from 1933 through 1935 and the dam was completed in 1937 when the spillway gates were installed. The reservoir had a maximum surface area of approximately 960 acres and a storage capacity at the top of the spillway gates of 13,000 acre feet at the time of completion. Deposition of sediments behind the dam has reduced the capacity to 10,000 acre-feet. A safety analysis conducted by the BIA in the early to mid 1980s, under the agency's Dam Safety Maintenance and Repair Program, indicated that dam rehabilitation work was necessary. The study concluded by giving the dam a high hazard rating and a poor overall safety rating. The hazard rating indicated that more than six lives could be lost in the event of dam failure. The safety rating indicates that the overall risk of overtopping by floods or structural failure due to an earthquake is relatively high. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water storage capacity of the reservoir, the need for dam modification to allow full water storage capacity in the reservoir, and passage provisions for Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT), a federally protected threatened species. The proposed action would include repair of all major features of the dam, realignment of the northern half of the embankment, repair of the outlet works and service spillway, enlargement of the emergency spillway, flattening of the upstream slope embankment, structural changes to the upstream and downstream foundations of the dam to increase the dynamic stability of the structure, emplacement of a geomembrane seepage barrier, and construction of a downstream stability berm. In addition, a fish passage would be incorporated into the construction design. Fish passage for LCT would be provided by means of a rock ramp fishway built at the edge of the emergency spillway from the Walker River up to the reservoir pool. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The dam repair project would allow the operation of the Weber Reservoir at current full capacity of 10,700 acre-feet. Risks of dam failure or overtopping would be decreased significantly, ensuring the protection of residents and visitors downstream of the reservoir. The proposed action would provide for an integrated set of measures to ensure safe operation of the dam, while utilizing the maximum capacity of the reservoir. Irrigation water would continue to be provided to the reservation. The fish passage would allow for movement of LCT upstream beyond the dam; currently LCT migrate during high flows from Walker lake. Warm water fish would recolonize the reservoir from upstream. Recreational use of the reservoir would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in short-term disturbance of soil and degradation of water quality near and downstream of the dam. One acre of wetland would be displaced during construction. Recreational access to the dam and reservoir would be lost during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Dams Safety Act, and Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-683). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0483D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050193, Final EIS--181 pages, Appendices--223 pages, May 11, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Agriculture KW - Dams KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Water Storage KW - Nevada KW - Walker River KW - Weber Reservoir KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Dams Safety Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36447034?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEBER+DAM+REPAIR+AND+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+LYON+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WEBER+DAM+REPAIR+AND+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+LYON+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 11, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEBER DAM REPAIR AND MODIFICATION PROJECT, LYON AND MINERAL COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - WEBER DAM REPAIR AND MODIFICATION PROJECT, LYON AND MINERAL COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 36372057; 050685F-050193_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation and modification of the Weber Dam on the Walker River in Lyon and Mineral counties, Nevada is proposed. The Weber Dam is a small earthen structure on the Walker River Paiute Indian Reservation in western Nevada that impounds the waters of a stream that originates in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and terminates at Walker Lake. The dam is operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to provide irrigation water to the reservation. The major portion of the dam was build from 1933 through 1935 and the dam was completed in 1937 when the spillway gates were installed. The reservoir had a maximum surface area of approximately 960 acres and a storage capacity at the top of the spillway gates of 13,000 acre feet at the time of completion. Deposition of sediments behind the dam has reduced the capacity to 10,000 acre-feet. A safety analysis conducted by the BIA in the early to mid 1980s, under the agency's Dam Safety Maintenance and Repair Program, indicated that dam rehabilitation work was necessary. The study concluded by giving the dam a high hazard rating and a poor overall safety rating. The hazard rating indicated that more than six lives could be lost in the event of dam failure. The safety rating indicates that the overall risk of overtopping by floods or structural failure due to an earthquake is relatively high. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water storage capacity of the reservoir, the need for dam modification to allow full water storage capacity in the reservoir, and passage provisions for Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT), a federally protected threatened species. The proposed action would include repair of all major features of the dam, realignment of the northern half of the embankment, repair of the outlet works and service spillway, enlargement of the emergency spillway, flattening of the upstream slope embankment, structural changes to the upstream and downstream foundations of the dam to increase the dynamic stability of the structure, emplacement of a geomembrane seepage barrier, and construction of a downstream stability berm. In addition, a fish passage would be incorporated into the construction design. Fish passage for LCT would be provided by means of a rock ramp fishway built at the edge of the emergency spillway from the Walker River up to the reservoir pool. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The dam repair project would allow the operation of the Weber Reservoir at current full capacity of 10,700 acre-feet. Risks of dam failure or overtopping would be decreased significantly, ensuring the protection of residents and visitors downstream of the reservoir. The proposed action would provide for an integrated set of measures to ensure safe operation of the dam, while utilizing the maximum capacity of the reservoir. Irrigation water would continue to be provided to the reservation. The fish passage would allow for movement of LCT upstream beyond the dam; currently LCT migrate during high flows from Walker lake. Warm water fish would recolonize the reservoir from upstream. Recreational use of the reservoir would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in short-term disturbance of soil and degradation of water quality near and downstream of the dam. One acre of wetland would be displaced during construction. Recreational access to the dam and reservoir would be lost during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Dams Safety Act, and Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-683). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0483D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050193, Final EIS--181 pages, Appendices--223 pages, May 11, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agriculture KW - Dams KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Water Storage KW - Nevada KW - Walker River KW - Weber Reservoir KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Dams Safety Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEBER+DAM+REPAIR+AND+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+LYON+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WEBER+DAM+REPAIR+AND+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+LYON+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 11, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEBER DAM REPAIR AND MODIFICATION PROJECT, LYON AND MINERAL COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - WEBER DAM REPAIR AND MODIFICATION PROJECT, LYON AND MINERAL COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 36367340; 050685F-050193_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation and modification of the Weber Dam on the Walker River in Lyon and Mineral counties, Nevada is proposed. The Weber Dam is a small earthen structure on the Walker River Paiute Indian Reservation in western Nevada that impounds the waters of a stream that originates in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and terminates at Walker Lake. The dam is operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to provide irrigation water to the reservation. The major portion of the dam was build from 1933 through 1935 and the dam was completed in 1937 when the spillway gates were installed. The reservoir had a maximum surface area of approximately 960 acres and a storage capacity at the top of the spillway gates of 13,000 acre feet at the time of completion. Deposition of sediments behind the dam has reduced the capacity to 10,000 acre-feet. A safety analysis conducted by the BIA in the early to mid 1980s, under the agency's Dam Safety Maintenance and Repair Program, indicated that dam rehabilitation work was necessary. The study concluded by giving the dam a high hazard rating and a poor overall safety rating. The hazard rating indicated that more than six lives could be lost in the event of dam failure. The safety rating indicates that the overall risk of overtopping by floods or structural failure due to an earthquake is relatively high. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water storage capacity of the reservoir, the need for dam modification to allow full water storage capacity in the reservoir, and passage provisions for Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT), a federally protected threatened species. The proposed action would include repair of all major features of the dam, realignment of the northern half of the embankment, repair of the outlet works and service spillway, enlargement of the emergency spillway, flattening of the upstream slope embankment, structural changes to the upstream and downstream foundations of the dam to increase the dynamic stability of the structure, emplacement of a geomembrane seepage barrier, and construction of a downstream stability berm. In addition, a fish passage would be incorporated into the construction design. Fish passage for LCT would be provided by means of a rock ramp fishway built at the edge of the emergency spillway from the Walker River up to the reservoir pool. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The dam repair project would allow the operation of the Weber Reservoir at current full capacity of 10,700 acre-feet. Risks of dam failure or overtopping would be decreased significantly, ensuring the protection of residents and visitors downstream of the reservoir. The proposed action would provide for an integrated set of measures to ensure safe operation of the dam, while utilizing the maximum capacity of the reservoir. Irrigation water would continue to be provided to the reservation. The fish passage would allow for movement of LCT upstream beyond the dam; currently LCT migrate during high flows from Walker lake. Warm water fish would recolonize the reservoir from upstream. Recreational use of the reservoir would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in short-term disturbance of soil and degradation of water quality near and downstream of the dam. One acre of wetland would be displaced during construction. Recreational access to the dam and reservoir would be lost during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Dams Safety Act, and Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-683). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0483D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050193, Final EIS--181 pages, Appendices--223 pages, May 11, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agriculture KW - Dams KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Water Storage KW - Nevada KW - Walker River KW - Weber Reservoir KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Dams Safety Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367340?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEBER+DAM+REPAIR+AND+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+LYON+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WEBER+DAM+REPAIR+AND+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+LYON+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 11, 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) (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT 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, & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION) (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2001). AN - 36369204; 050683D-050163_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 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, Browh, 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 draft supplemental EIS include those related to horn noise, the relationship between vibration and horn noise, and potential for increase 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. JF - EPA number: 050163, 252 pages, April 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water 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/36369204?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-15&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACTSTATEMENT+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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACTSTATEMENT+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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 15, 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) (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2001). AN - 16346741; 11502 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 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, Browh, 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 draft supplemental EIS include those related to horn noise, the relationship between vibration and horn noise, and potential for increase 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. JF - EPA number: 050163, 252 pages, April 15, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water 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/16346741?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-15&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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACTSTATEMENT+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+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACTSTATEMENT+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 - Draft. Preparation date: April 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM DAM ROAD ACCESS RESTRICTION, FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - FOLSOM DAM ROAD ACCESS RESTRICTION, FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36371840; 050635F-050156_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The continued closure of Folsom Dam Road cross the American River in California is proposed. 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, are considered in this final EIS. Two alternatives would involve 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. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Road use restrictions 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. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Restricted access to the 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. JF - EPA number: 050156, 284 pages and maps, April 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: DES 04-58 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Dams KW - Flood Hazards KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - American River UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371840?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+DAM+ROAD+ACCESS+RESTRICTION%2C+FOLSOM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+DAM+ROAD+ACCESS+RESTRICTION%2C+FOLSOM%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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM DAM ROAD ACCESS RESTRICTION, FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16358146; 11496 AB - PURPOSE: The continued closure of Folsom Dam Road cross the American River in California is proposed. 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, are considered in this final EIS. Two alternatives would involve 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. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Road use restrictions 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. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Restricted access to the 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. JF - EPA number: 050156, 284 pages and maps, April 14, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: DES 04-58 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Dams KW - Flood Hazards KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - American River UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16358146?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+DAM+ROAD+ACCESS+RESTRICTION%2C+FOLSOM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+DAM+ROAD+ACCESS+RESTRICTION%2C+FOLSOM%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN CORRIDOR, FROM I-15 AT REFERENCE POST 2 IN ST. GEORGE TO SR 9 NEAR HURRICANE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SOUTHERN CORRIDOR, FROM I-15 AT REFERENCE POST 2 IN ST. GEORGE TO SR 9 NEAR HURRICANE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36369736; 050634F-050153_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane, limited-access highway from St. George to Hurricane in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The facility would extend 20 to 26 miles from Interstate 15 II-15), approximately three miles north of the Arizona border near the southwest end of St. George, to State Route (SR 9) near Hurricane. The corridor is characterized by high traffic levels and inadequate capacity to meet traffic demands. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this abbreviated final EIS. All build alternatives would begin at the I-15 interchange at Reference Post 3. The 4300 West Alternative would extend 22 miles to the intersection of 4300 West with SR near Hurricane. This alternative would be most westerly on SR 9 and would include approximately 11 interchanges. The 3400 West Alternative would extend 22 miles to the intersection of 3400 West with SR 9 near Hurricane, and would include approximately 10 interchanges on the corridor. The 2800 West Alternative would extend 26 miles to the intersection of 2800 West with SR 9 in Hurricane and would include approximately 12 interchanges; this alternative is the most easterly on SR 9. A multiple-use trail for pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians would parallel the highway under any build alternative. Estimated construction costs for the 4300 West, 3400 West, and 2800 West alternatives are $161.5 million, $151.6 million, and $209.2 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The facility would provide a regional transportation route accessible to residents and workers in St. George, Washington City, and Hurricane that would complement local land use plans. Local add through traffic would be separated as appropriate, and travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak hours. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the loss of up to 50 acres of prime farmland, 257 to 385 acres of grazing allotments, and 675 to 928 acres of desert shrub/scrub habitat. The 2800 West Alternative could affect a bald eagle next during the construction phase, and three endangered plant species would probably be affected by highway development. From 20 to 23 archaeological sites potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places could be affected. The facility would affect access to two or three trails and the use of one recreation site. Air quality would decline somewhat along the corridor, but federal standards would not be exceeded. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at seven sensitive receptor sites. From eight to 14 groundwater wells would be affected. Three to five hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction. The visual aesthetics of the corridor would be degraded by highway structures. 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 03-0339D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050153, Volume 2--568 pages and maps, April 12, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-03-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369736?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+CORRIDOR%2C+FROM+I-15+AT+REFERENCE+POST+2+IN+ST.+GEORGE+TO+SR+9+NEAR+HURRICANE%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+CORRIDOR%2C+FROM+I-15+AT+REFERENCE+POST+2+IN+ST.+GEORGE+TO+SR+9+NEAR+HURRICANE%2C+WASHINGTON+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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 12, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN CORRIDOR, FROM I-15 AT REFERENCE POST 2 IN ST. GEORGE TO SR 9 NEAR HURRICANE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 16359889; 11493 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane, limited-access highway from St. George to Hurricane in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The facility would extend 20 to 26 miles from Interstate 15 II-15), approximately three miles north of the Arizona border near the southwest end of St. George, to State Route (SR 9) near Hurricane. The corridor is characterized by high traffic levels and inadequate capacity to meet traffic demands. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this abbreviated final EIS. All build alternatives would begin at the I-15 interchange at Reference Post 3. The 4300 West Alternative would extend 22 miles to the intersection of 4300 West with SR near Hurricane. This alternative would be most westerly on SR 9 and would include approximately 11 interchanges. The 3400 West Alternative would extend 22 miles to the intersection of 3400 West with SR 9 near Hurricane, and would include approximately 10 interchanges on the corridor. The 2800 West Alternative would extend 26 miles to the intersection of 2800 West with SR 9 in Hurricane and would include approximately 12 interchanges; this alternative is the most easterly on SR 9. A multiple-use trail for pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians would parallel the highway under any build alternative. Estimated construction costs for the 4300 West, 3400 West, and 2800 West alternatives are $161.5 million, $151.6 million, and $209.2 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The facility would provide a regional transportation route accessible to residents and workers in St. George, Washington City, and Hurricane that would complement local land use plans. Local add through traffic would be separated as appropriate, and travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak hours. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the build alternatives would result in the loss of up to 50 acres of prime farmland, 257 to 385 acres of grazing allotments, and 675 to 928 acres of desert shrub/scrub habitat. The 2800 West Alternative could affect a bald eagle next during the construction phase, and three endangered plant species would probably be affected by highway development. From 20 to 23 archaeological sites potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places could be affected. The facility would affect access to two or three trails and the use of one recreation site. Air quality would decline somewhat along the corridor, but federal standards would not be exceeded. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at seven sensitive receptor sites. From eight to 14 groundwater wells would be affected. Three to five hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction. The visual aesthetics of the corridor would be degraded by highway structures. 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 03-0339D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050153, Volume 2--568 pages and maps, April 12, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-03-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16359889?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+CORRIDOR%2C+FROM+I-15+AT+REFERENCE+POST+2+IN+ST.+GEORGE+TO+SR+9+NEAR+HURRICANE%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+CORRIDOR%2C+FROM+I-15+AT+REFERENCE+POST+2+IN+ST.+GEORGE+TO+SR+9+NEAR+HURRICANE%2C+WASHINGTON+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 12, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VICKSBURG CAMPAIGN TRAIL, ARKANSAS, LOUISIANA, MISISSIPPI, AND TENNESSEE. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - VICKSBURG CAMPAIGN TRAIL, ARKANSAS, LOUISIANA, MISISSIPPI, AND TENNESSEE. AN - 36371213; 050527F-050146_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan to preserve historic resources associated with the Vicksburg Campaign of the U.S. Civil War is proposed. On July 4, 1863, after a long and exhausting campaign and siege that cost many thousands of lives and casualties, the Confederate stronghold of Vicksburg on the Mississippi River surrendered to Major General Ulysses S. Grant. It was a moment of decisive strategic importance in the western theatre of the Civil War. In recent years, the threat to the battlefields and other historic sites connected with the Vicksburg Campaign from private and public sector development has increased substantially. To address this growing threat to the nation's irreplaceable cultural heritage, a number of sites in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee associated with the campaign have been recommended for preservation and interpretation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would link all site associated with the Vicksburg Campaign Trail in a formally designated initiative, seeking to acquire and/or manage and protect all national significant major of primary importance. Secondary sites currently under federal, state, or local government ownership would remain so. Secondary sites that are privately owned would continue to be privately owned, unless a state of local government agency or nonprofit private entity were to step forward and acquire rights to the land. Tertiary sites, which are privately owned for the most part, would largely remain privately owned, barring possible acquisition of fee title ownership or protective easement by state of local government. The initiative would establish an overall management eneity/advisory committee supplemented with working task forces from each state. A variety of actions would be available to assist in the preservation of all sites, ranging from designing a logo and printing maps and brochures to developing partnerships. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Of the three alternatives, Alternative C would achieve the most toward realizing the intention of preserving important historic and cultural aspects of the American national heritage along the campaign trail, while providing the greatest level of enhancement of visitor experience. Archaeological as well as historic resource sites would benefit from government protection. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Private and public sector developments at unprotected sites and installation of facilities at protected sites would result in minor disturbance of soils and topography. Soil disturbances would contribute slightly to erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. Developments would also encroach on floodplains and wetlands, and displace small amounts of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Vicksburg Campaign Trail Battlefields Preservation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-487). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0424D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050146, 327 pages, April 6, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-08 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Trails KW - Arkansas KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Tennessee KW - Vicksburg Campaign Trail KW - Vicksburg Campaign Trail Battlefields Preservation Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371213?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VICKSBURG+CAMPAIGN+TRAIL%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISISSIPPI%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=VICKSBURG+CAMPAIGN+TRAIL%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISISSIPPI%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 6, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VICKSBURG CAMPAIGN TRAIL, ARKANSAS, LOUISIANA, MISISSIPPI, AND TENNESSEE. AN - 16358045; 11486 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan to preserve historic resources associated with the Vicksburg Campaign of the U.S. Civil War is proposed. On July 4, 1863, after a long and exhausting campaign and siege that cost many thousands of lives and casualties, the Confederate stronghold of Vicksburg on the Mississippi River surrendered to Major General Ulysses S. Grant. It was a moment of decisive strategic importance in the western theatre of the Civil War. In recent years, the threat to the battlefields and other historic sites connected with the Vicksburg Campaign from private and public sector development has increased substantially. To address this growing threat to the nation's irreplaceable cultural heritage, a number of sites in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee associated with the campaign have been recommended for preservation and interpretation. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would link all site associated with the Vicksburg Campaign Trail in a formally designated initiative, seeking to acquire and/or manage and protect all national significant major of primary importance. Secondary sites currently under federal, state, or local government ownership would remain so. Secondary sites that are privately owned would continue to be privately owned, unless a state of local government agency or nonprofit private entity were to step forward and acquire rights to the land. Tertiary sites, which are privately owned for the most part, would largely remain privately owned, barring possible acquisition of fee title ownership or protective easement by state of local government. The initiative would establish an overall management eneity/advisory committee supplemented with working task forces from each state. A variety of actions would be available to assist in the preservation of all sites, ranging from designing a logo and printing maps and brochures to developing partnerships. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Of the three alternatives, Alternative C would achieve the most toward realizing the intention of preserving important historic and cultural aspects of the American national heritage along the campaign trail, while providing the greatest level of enhancement of visitor experience. Archaeological as well as historic resource sites would benefit from government protection. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Private and public sector developments at unprotected sites and installation of facilities at protected sites would result in minor disturbance of soils and topography. Soil disturbances would contribute slightly to erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. Developments would also encroach on floodplains and wetlands, and displace small amounts of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Vicksburg Campaign Trail Battlefields Preservation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-487). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0424D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050146, 327 pages, April 6, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-08 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Trails KW - Arkansas KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Tennessee KW - Vicksburg Campaign Trail KW - Vicksburg Campaign Trail Battlefields Preservation Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16358045?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VICKSBURG+CAMPAIGN+TRAIL%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISISSIPPI%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=VICKSBURG+CAMPAIGN+TRAIL%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISISSIPPI%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&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 - Final. Preparation date: April 6, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BOULDER CITY/US 93 CORRIDOR STUDY, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36441325; 11480 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 10.4 miles of US 93 in the vicinity of Boulder City, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The study corridor extends from US 95 in the city of Henderson on the west to a point 4.7 miles east of downtown Bouler City at the planned western end of the Hoover Dam Bypass project. Within the study corridor, US 93 varies from a four-lane divided roadway to a two-lane roadway, with numerous business driveway access points and cross streets. The various roadway cross-sections and other deficiencies result in peak hour traffic congestion and a high accident rate. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would involve a general widening of existing US 93 and other roadway improvements within the study corridor limits. The alternative would make improvements to the existing 11 miles of roadway, mostly within the existing US 93 rights-of-way. The improved facility would consist of a four-lane divided freeway. Alternative C would provide a new through-town freeway connecting the western and eastern study termini. It would consist of a continuous four-lane, controlled-access freeway parallel to existing US 93. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a southern bypass of Boulder City. It would consist of a continuous four-lane, controlled access divided freeway bypassing the developed area of the city to the south. Depending on the action alternative considered, costs of the project range from $220 million for alternatives B and C to $345 million for Alternative D; estimates are in 2002 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide overall transportation improvements within the corridor, improving regional mobility and reducing the number of accidents affecting users of the facility. Local circulation and access would be maintained or improved. Noise levels and air pollution emissions along the existing corridor would decline regardless of the action alterative selected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the action alternatives would result in the displacement of 327 to 679 acres of wildlife habitat, including habitat for gila monsters and bats under Alternative D, up to 5.82 acres of wetlands and 14.2 acres of Waters of the U.S., and 10.4 to 29.9 acres of floodplain, Five businesses would be displaced under Alternative B. Two to six archaeological sites and six to 10 historic sites would be affected by the project. The project would affect one acre of the River Mountains Loop Trail, 76 acres of a planned public golf course, and/or 85 acres of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Water quality in the desert washes that drain the project area could be degraded due to storm water runoff from the highway. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), 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 970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0207D, Volume 26, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050140, 621 pages and maps, March 30, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NV-EIS-00-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Mead National Recreation Area KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36441325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BOULDER+CITY%2FUS+93+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=BOULDER+CITY%2FUS+93+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Carson City, Nevada; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BOULDER CITY/US 93 CORRIDOR STUDY, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - BOULDER CITY/US 93 CORRIDOR STUDY, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36365043; 050628F-050140_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 10.4 miles of US 93 in the vicinity of Boulder City, Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The study corridor extends from US 95 in the city of Henderson on the west to a point 4.7 miles east of downtown Bouler City at the planned western end of the Hoover Dam Bypass project. Within the study corridor, US 93 varies from a four-lane divided roadway to a two-lane roadway, with numerous business driveway access points and cross streets. The various roadway cross-sections and other deficiencies result in peak hour traffic congestion and a high accident rate. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would involve a general widening of existing US 93 and other roadway improvements within the study corridor limits. The alternative would make improvements to the existing 11 miles of roadway, mostly within the existing US 93 rights-of-way. The improved facility would consist of a four-lane divided freeway. Alternative C would provide a new through-town freeway connecting the western and eastern study termini. It would consist of a continuous four-lane, controlled-access freeway parallel to existing US 93. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a southern bypass of Boulder City. It would consist of a continuous four-lane, controlled access divided freeway bypassing the developed area of the city to the south. Depending on the action alternative considered, costs of the project range from $220 million for alternatives B and C to $345 million for Alternative D; estimates are in 2002 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide overall transportation improvements within the corridor, improving regional mobility and reducing the number of accidents affecting users of the facility. Local circulation and access would be maintained or improved. Noise levels and air pollution emissions along the existing corridor would decline regardless of the action alterative selected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the action alternatives would result in the displacement of 327 to 679 acres of wildlife habitat, including habitat for gila monsters and bats under Alternative D, up to 5.82 acres of wetlands and 14.2 acres of Waters of the U.S., and 10.4 to 29.9 acres of floodplain, Five businesses would be displaced under Alternative B. Two to six archaeological sites and six to 10 historic sites would be affected by the project. The project would affect one acre of the River Mountains Loop Trail, 76 acres of a planned public golf course, and/or 85 acres of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Water quality in the desert washes that drain the project area could be degraded due to storm water runoff from the highway. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), 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 970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0207D, Volume 26, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050140, 621 pages and maps, March 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NV-EIS-00-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Mead National Recreation Area KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365043?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BOULDER+CITY%2FUS+93+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=BOULDER+CITY%2FUS+93+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Carson City, Nevada; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRY FORK FEDERAL COAL LEASE-BY-APPLICATION (COC-67232), GRAND MESA, UNCOMPAHGRE AND GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36438596; 11476 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing of federal coal reserves in the Dry Fork Federal Coal Lease Area (COC-67232) within the Grand Mesa of the Uncompahgre and Gunnison national forests and Gunnison County, Colorado is proposed. In September 2003, the ArkLand Company filed a competetive coal lease application with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to lease and mine federal coal reserves in the 1,517-acre Dry Fork Tract near Somerset and adjacent to the existing underground mine of the West Elk Mine. The tract contains an estimated 17 million tons of recoverable goal, though feasible recovery is limited to underground mining methods. If ArkLand was the successful bidder at a potential lease sale, then Mountain Coal Company (MCC), which is operated by ArkLand, a subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc., would extract the coal from this lease tract as part of a logical extension of the Wests Elk Mine current underground longwall mining activities, which began in 1981 and currently produces coal from several existing federal leases. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative B) would use underground mining methods to extract coal from the seam lying to the southeast of the MCC fee (private) coal and fee surface property, south of existing federal coal leases COC-56447 (Box Canyon lease) and east of the southern extension of federal coal lease C-1362, both held by MCC. ArkLand applied for all coal seam reserves within the Dry Fork Lease-by-Application (LBA) tract. MCC currently extracts coal from the B Sean in the West Elk Mine to the north of the tract. The existing West Elk Mine operations plan calls for mining both E and B seam reserves to the west and north of the Dry Fork LBA tract, and MCC intends to mine E Seam reserves within the Dry Fork LBA tract. Production at the West Elk Mine is limited to 8.2 million tons per year. Current production ranges between 6.5 and 7.0 million tons per year, using the longwall mining methods, and is capable of peaking at a rate of 7.5 million tons per year. Future annual production from the new mine would depend upon several factors, including rail transportation, which ultimately limits production from the North Fork Valley. Coal would be transported to market using the existing coal-handling facilities and existing spur rail line. The E Seam coal reserves n the Dry Fork LBA tract represent approximately 30 months of additional coal reserves based on the rate of mining currently employed at the West Elk Mine. The E Seam would be mined from 2008 to 2015. Though ArkLand's application for the Dry Fork LBA tract did not include forseeable mining in the B Seam, BLM has determined recoverable reserves in the B Seam. Hence, the coal lease would encompass all coal within the lease boundaries. If the B Seam were mined, mining activities would probably occur between 2015 and 2016. All mined areas would be reclaimed following mining. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would lease additional federal coal reserves in the Dry Fork LBA tract for economic development and production of the coal consistent with applicable laws and regulations. The mining operation would extend the life of the West Elk Mine. The coal to be mined is fuel efficient, high-British-thermal-unit, low-sulfur coal. The use of this coal would help the electric generation industry meet its requirements under the Clean Air Act. Reclamation activities would return the surface to approximate the original contour and revegetation of the area. Reclamation has generally been successful within two to five years after reclamation work has been completed. Economic benefits valued at $175 million would be realized over a 30-month period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 60 acres of upland vegetation would be destroyed by surface activities, and livestock would be excluded from the area during reclamation activities. Subsidence and other geographical changes, as well as hydrological changes in groundwater resources, would result from mining and reclamation activities. Overburden strate would be permanently altered through caving and fracturing. Residual surface tension cracks could remain in more brittle bedrock material on ridges or cliffs. The movement of existing landslides and rock falls may be aggravated. It is likely, that like other mines in the area, methane gas would build up in the underground workings after rock strata have subsided due to mining. Approximately 30 draining wells used to extract the methane would require additional surface disturbance for well pads. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act 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), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050136, 141 pages, March 24, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Coal KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Natural Gas KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Gunnison National Forest KW - Uncompahgre National Forest KW - Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36438596?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DRY+FORK+FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE-BY-APPLICATION+%28COC-67232%29%2C+GRAND+MESA%2C+UNCOMPAHGRE+AND+GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=DRY+FORK+FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE-BY-APPLICATION+%28COC-67232%29%2C+GRAND+MESA%2C+UNCOMPAHGRE+AND+GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Delta, Colorado; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 24, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BART WARM SPRINGS EXTENSION, FREMONT, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36431115; 11433 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of a 5.4-mile extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system in the city of Fremont in southern Alameda County, California are proposed. The project, known as the Warm Springs Extension, would extend 5.4 miles south from the existing Fremont BART Station to a proposed new station in the Warm Springs district of Fremont. An optional station at Irvington is also under consideration. The Warm Springs Station would be a 34-acre multi-modal facility with 2,040 parking spaces and seven bus bays. The station site would be built around an internal circulation system similar to city blocks, so that parking areas could be redeveloped with transit-oriented development while maintaining the internal street system. Tail tracks would extend 3,000 feet south of the station to provide train turn-back facilities and temporary train storage capacity. Located just south of the stations adjacent to the tail tracks, the maintenance facility would have rail car lifts and associated shop facilities to accommodate one or two BART cars ad 30 employee parking spaces within a three-acre, fenced maintenance yard. The project would include the addition of 28 new BART vehicles, but the new vehicles would not be required until full rider-ship was reached. Traction power facilities (substations and gap breaker stations) would be provided at six locations adjacent to the alignment, as follows: Freemont Station, a point midway between the south subway portal and Paseo Padre Parkway, Blacow Road, a point midway between Auto Mail Parkway and South Grimmer Boulevard, Warms Springs Station, and the maintenance facility. A structure for ventilation pumping and emergency access would be provided at one or two locations along the one-mile subway segment of the alignment in Fremont's Central Park. The optional Irving to Station would be an 18-acre multi-modal facility with 925 parking spaces and five bus bays. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Warms Springs Extension would enhance regional transit by improving the link between the southern Alameda County-northern Santa Clara County area and the rest of the East Bay and San Francisco. By shortening travel times and improving reliability, the extension would generate additional transit rider-ship and reduce overall traffic congestion along the corridor. The extension would help accommodate project future growth in employment and population, reduce pressure to expand roads, and support the region's efforts to meet state ad federal air quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require displacement of residences and businesses and substantially diminished access to and parking at businesses and residences near stations. Three historic sites and two archaeological sites could be damaged. Facilities development would result in loss of wetland habitat, ruderal forb-grassland habitat, and riparian forest. Western burrowing owl, a federally protected species, and federally protected raptors could be affected. Park use would be disrupted during construction, and the existing of the system would hasten the deterioration of parkland in the area. Local intersections in the vicinity of station facilities would suffer from severe congestion, particularly at peak hours. The extension track and station(s) would lie within a seismically active fault zone, which is, moreover, characterized by expansive soils. Workers and the public could be exposed to hazardous materials in soils and/or groundwater and from accidental system releases. Changes in drainage patterns could lead to flash flooding and flood storage capacity would decline. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (88-578), 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: 050095, 1,407 pages, March 24, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Research and Development KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Hazards KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Section 6(f) Statements 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/36431115?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BART+WARM+SPRINGS+EXTENSION%2C+FREMONT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BART+WARM+SPRINGS+EXTENSION%2C+FREMONT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 24, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRY FORK FEDERAL COAL LEASE-BY-APPLICATION (COC-67232), GRAND MESA, UNCOMPAHGRE AND GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - DRY FORK FEDERAL COAL LEASE-BY-APPLICATION (COC-67232), GRAND MESA, UNCOMPAHGRE AND GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36372894; 050463D-050136_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing of federal coal reserves in the Dry Fork Federal Coal Lease Area (COC-67232) within the Grand Mesa of the Uncompahgre and Gunnison national forests and Gunnison County, Colorado is proposed. In September 2003, the ArkLand Company filed a competetive coal lease application with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to lease and mine federal coal reserves in the 1,517-acre Dry Fork Tract near Somerset and adjacent to the existing underground mine of the West Elk Mine. The tract contains an estimated 17 million tons of recoverable goal, though feasible recovery is limited to underground mining methods. If ArkLand was the successful bidder at a potential lease sale, then Mountain Coal Company (MCC), which is operated by ArkLand, a subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc., would extract the coal from this lease tract as part of a logical extension of the Wests Elk Mine current underground longwall mining activities, which began in 1981 and currently produces coal from several existing federal leases. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative B) would use underground mining methods to extract coal from the seam lying to the southeast of the MCC fee (private) coal and fee surface property, south of existing federal coal leases COC-56447 (Box Canyon lease) and east of the southern extension of federal coal lease C-1362, both held by MCC. ArkLand applied for all coal seam reserves within the Dry Fork Lease-by-Application (LBA) tract. MCC currently extracts coal from the B Sean in the West Elk Mine to the north of the tract. The existing West Elk Mine operations plan calls for mining both E and B seam reserves to the west and north of the Dry Fork LBA tract, and MCC intends to mine E Seam reserves within the Dry Fork LBA tract. Production at the West Elk Mine is limited to 8.2 million tons per year. Current production ranges between 6.5 and 7.0 million tons per year, using the longwall mining methods, and is capable of peaking at a rate of 7.5 million tons per year. Future annual production from the new mine would depend upon several factors, including rail transportation, which ultimately limits production from the North Fork Valley. Coal would be transported to market using the existing coal-handling facilities and existing spur rail line. The E Seam coal reserves n the Dry Fork LBA tract represent approximately 30 months of additional coal reserves based on the rate of mining currently employed at the West Elk Mine. The E Seam would be mined from 2008 to 2015. Though ArkLand's application for the Dry Fork LBA tract did not include forseeable mining in the B Seam, BLM has determined recoverable reserves in the B Seam. Hence, the coal lease would encompass all coal within the lease boundaries. If the B Seam were mined, mining activities would probably occur between 2015 and 2016. All mined areas would be reclaimed following mining. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would lease additional federal coal reserves in the Dry Fork LBA tract for economic development and production of the coal consistent with applicable laws and regulations. The mining operation would extend the life of the West Elk Mine. The coal to be mined is fuel efficient, high-British-thermal-unit, low-sulfur coal. The use of this coal would help the electric generation industry meet its requirements under the Clean Air Act. Reclamation activities would return the surface to approximate the original contour and revegetation of the area. Reclamation has generally been successful within two to five years after reclamation work has been completed. Economic benefits valued at $175 million would be realized over a 30-month period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 60 acres of upland vegetation would be destroyed by surface activities, and livestock would be excluded from the area during reclamation activities. Subsidence and other geographical changes, as well as hydrological changes in groundwater resources, would result from mining and reclamation activities. Overburden strate would be permanently altered through caving and fracturing. Residual surface tension cracks could remain in more brittle bedrock material on ridges or cliffs. The movement of existing landslides and rock falls may be aggravated. It is likely, that like other mines in the area, methane gas would build up in the underground workings after rock strata have subsided due to mining. Approximately 30 draining wells used to extract the methane would require additional surface disturbance for well pads. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act 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), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050136, 141 pages, March 24, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Coal KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Natural Gas KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Gunnison National Forest KW - Uncompahgre National Forest KW - Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372894?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DRY+FORK+FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE-BY-APPLICATION+%28COC-67232%29%2C+GRAND+MESA%2C+UNCOMPAHGRE+AND+GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=DRY+FORK+FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE-BY-APPLICATION+%28COC-67232%29%2C+GRAND+MESA%2C+UNCOMPAHGRE+AND+GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Delta, Colorado; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 24, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BART WARM SPRINGS EXTENSION, FREMONT, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - BART WARM SPRINGS EXTENSION, FREMONT, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36368365; 050385D-050095_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of a 5.4-mile extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system in the city of Fremont in southern Alameda County, California are proposed. The project, known as the Warm Springs Extension, would extend 5.4 miles south from the existing Fremont BART Station to a proposed new station in the Warm Springs district of Fremont. An optional station at Irvington is also under consideration. The Warm Springs Station would be a 34-acre multi-modal facility with 2,040 parking spaces and seven bus bays. The station site would be built around an internal circulation system similar to city blocks, so that parking areas could be redeveloped with transit-oriented development while maintaining the internal street system. Tail tracks would extend 3,000 feet south of the station to provide train turn-back facilities and temporary train storage capacity. Located just south of the stations adjacent to the tail tracks, the maintenance facility would have rail car lifts and associated shop facilities to accommodate one or two BART cars ad 30 employee parking spaces within a three-acre, fenced maintenance yard. The project would include the addition of 28 new BART vehicles, but the new vehicles would not be required until full rider-ship was reached. Traction power facilities (substations and gap breaker stations) would be provided at six locations adjacent to the alignment, as follows: Freemont Station, a point midway between the south subway portal and Paseo Padre Parkway, Blacow Road, a point midway between Auto Mail Parkway and South Grimmer Boulevard, Warms Springs Station, and the maintenance facility. A structure for ventilation pumping and emergency access would be provided at one or two locations along the one-mile subway segment of the alignment in Fremont's Central Park. The optional Irving to Station would be an 18-acre multi-modal facility with 925 parking spaces and five bus bays. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Warms Springs Extension would enhance regional transit by improving the link between the southern Alameda County-northern Santa Clara County area and the rest of the East Bay and San Francisco. By shortening travel times and improving reliability, the extension would generate additional transit rider-ship and reduce overall traffic congestion along the corridor. The extension would help accommodate project future growth in employment and population, reduce pressure to expand roads, and support the region's efforts to meet state ad federal air quality standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require displacement of residences and businesses and substantially diminished access to and parking at businesses and residences near stations. Three historic sites and two archaeological sites could be damaged. Facilities development would result in loss of wetland habitat, ruderal forb-grassland habitat, and riparian forest. Western burrowing owl, a federally protected species, and federally protected raptors could be affected. Park use would be disrupted during construction, and the existing of the system would hasten the deterioration of parkland in the area. Local intersections in the vicinity of station facilities would suffer from severe congestion, particularly at peak hours. The extension track and station(s) would lie within a seismically active fault zone, which is, moreover, characterized by expansive soils. Workers and the public could be exposed to hazardous materials in soils and/or groundwater and from accidental system releases. Changes in drainage patterns could lead to flash flooding and flood storage capacity would decline. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (88-578), 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: 050095, 1,407 pages, March 24, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Research and Development KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Hazards KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Section 6(f) Statements 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/36368365?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BART+WARM+SPRINGS+EXTENSION%2C+FREMONT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BART+WARM+SPRINGS+EXTENSION%2C+FREMONT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 24, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36436492; 11465 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436492?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 21 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36372750; 050518F-050125_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 21 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372750?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 8 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36372647; 050518F-050125_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372647?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 6 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36372569; 050518F-050125_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372569?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 23 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36372316; 050518F-050125_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 23 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372316?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 3 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36372204; 050518F-050125_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372204?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 7 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36371957; 050518F-050125_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371957?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 2 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36371895; 050518F-050125_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371895?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 1 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36371680; 050518F-050125_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371680?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 20 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36371252; 050518F-050125_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 20 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371252?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 5 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36370681; 050518F-050125_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370681?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 22 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36370630; 050518F-050125_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 22 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 17 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36370161; 050518F-050125_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 17 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370161?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 19 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36369512; 050518F-050125_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 19 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369512?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 4 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36369390; 050518F-050125_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 11 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36366479; 050518F-050125_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 11 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366479?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 13 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36366210; 050518F-050125_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 13 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366210?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 12 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36366140; 050518F-050125_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 12 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366140?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 15 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36365952; 050518F-050125_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 15 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365952?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 14 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36365865; 050518F-050125_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 14 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365865?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 25 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36365847; 050518F-050125_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 25 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365847?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 9 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36364849; 050518F-050125_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 9 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364849?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 18 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36364833; 050518F-050125_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 18 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364833?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 16 of 25] T2 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36364762; 050518F-050125_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area of southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee is proposed. The National Area is located approximately 70 highway miles north and west of Knoxville in portions of Fentress, Scott, Pickett, and Morgan counties, Tennessee and McCreary County, Kentucky. The area encompasses 125,000 acres of rugged terrain on the Cumberland Plateau. The Big South Fork River begins within the National Area at the confluence of the New River and the clear Fork and flows approximately 49 miles northward through the National Area. The river is free-flowing for approximately 37 miles to the point at which it is affected by the headwaters for Lake Cumberland. The area provides a variety of readily available natural and cultural features, including the river, canyon rim views, and historic sites. A No Action Alternative (Alternative C) and two alternative action concepts were considered in the draft EIS of February 2000. Alternative A would provide an overall rustic retreat with minimal facilities except in selected areas. Alternative B would provide, around a primitive core, a variety of opportunities for resource-based recreation and convenient facilities. Under either alternative, a primitive recreation management unit would be created in the river gorge, which occupies less than half of the National Area. Trails and a trail-accessible rustic lodge would constitute the only recreational facilities in the primitive recreation management unit. A backwoods recreation management unit would be created for approximately 75 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for 65 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature minimal conveniences and facilities but would include roads, typically unpaved, for visitor use. An enhanced recreation management unit would be established for approximately 20 percent of the plateau under Alternative A and for approximately 30 percent of the plateau under Alternative B; this unit would feature a moderate level of conveniences and facilities, including improved campgrounds, paved roads, and higher density trail systems. A draft supplemental EIS of January 2003 considered additional information on the area, particularly information regarding resources, roads, and trails. An additional alternative (Alternative D), which is the currently preferred alternative, was also introduced. The previous alternatives presented only a general framework, using three different zone types, two of where were applies in different areas. The new alternative uses more zones in more areas in order to provide more strategic management direction for resources and visitor use. This final EIS addresses all four alternatives and identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compared to current conditions, Alternative A would provide more focused resource management and protection. The visitor experience would be oriented to one that is more rustic while allowing several areas to provide facilities, including those present at this date. Long-term goals would be more clearly stated, yielding greater understanding of the management of the area and its role in the region. Alternative B would provide many of the same benefits as Alternative A through it would accommodate a higher long-term development and use potential. Park visitation and employment would continue to enhance the local economy. The newly introduced alternative would provide for additional facilities in the southwest portion of the area, where lands have been recently acquired and designated facilities do not exist; Otherwise, Alternative D would largely have the same beneficial impacts as Alternatives A and B. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas production in the region outside the area would continue to create a potential for disruption of natural systems within the area. Alternatives B and D would allow for more alteration to the naturalness of the area's natural system than Alternative A. Site development under either alternative would affect soils and vegetation and associated wildlife habitat and contribute to sedimentation of receiving waters. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (PL Chapter 408, 39 Stat 535). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0181D, Volume 24, Number 2, 030050DS, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050125, 444 pages and maps, March 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 16 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-06 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Flood Control Act of 1968, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364762?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST, BARAGA, GOGEBI, HOUGHTON, IRON, MARQUETTE, AND ONTONAGON COUNTIES, MICHIGAN. AN - 36438732; 11458 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, hardwood management, aspen management, long-lived conifer management, and short-lived conifer management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) 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 102,000 acres for aspen, 53,000 areas for pine, 8,000 acres for jack pine, and 10,000 acres for balsam fir. Hardwood management would include even-aged management on 45,00 acres and uneven-aged management on 189,000 acres. The allowable sale quantities would be set at 90.1 million board-feet (MMBF) for the first decade and 132.1 MMBF for the second decade. Approximately 488,000 acres would be designated as suitable forest land. Old-growth stands would be designated within 170,000 acres. Special management measures would be taken to support Canada lynx habitat, and four management indicator species (American marten, ruffled grouse, cutleaf toothwort, and the mayfly/stonefly/caddisfly 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, encompassing a total of 50,0 acres, 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.). JF - EPA number: 050118, Executive Summary--36 pages and maps, Draft EIS--486 pages, Land and Resource management Plan--253 pages, Map Supplement, March 17, 2005 PY - 2005 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/36438732?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-17&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST, BARAGA, GOGEBI, HOUGHTON, IRON, MARQUETTE, AND ONTONAGON COUNTIES, MICHIGAN. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST, BARAGA, GOGEBI, HOUGHTON, IRON, MARQUETTE, AND ONTONAGON COUNTIES, MICHIGAN. AN - 36373534; 050514D-050118_0001 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, hardwood management, aspen management, long-lived conifer management, and short-lived conifer management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) 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 102,000 acres for aspen, 53,000 areas for pine, 8,000 acres for jack pine, and 10,000 acres for balsam fir. Hardwood management would include even-aged management on 45,00 acres and uneven-aged management on 189,000 acres. The allowable sale quantities would be set at 90.1 million board-feet (MMBF) for the first decade and 132.1 MMBF for the second decade. Approximately 488,000 acres would be designated as suitable forest land. Old-growth stands would be designated within 170,000 acres. Special management measures would be taken to support Canada lynx habitat, and four management indicator species (American marten, ruffled grouse, cutleaf toothwort, and the mayfly/stonefly/caddisfly 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, encompassing a total of 50,0 acres, 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.). JF - EPA number: 050118, Executive Summary--36 pages and maps, Draft EIS--486 pages, Land and Resource management Plan--253 pages, Map Supplement, March 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 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/36373534?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-17&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST, BARAGA, GOGEBI, HOUGHTON, IRON, MARQUETTE, AND ONTONAGON COUNTIES, MICHIGAN. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST, BARAGA, GOGEBI, HOUGHTON, IRON, MARQUETTE, AND ONTONAGON COUNTIES, MICHIGAN. AN - 36372437; 050514D-050118_0003 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, hardwood management, aspen management, long-lived conifer management, and short-lived conifer management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) 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 102,000 acres for aspen, 53,000 areas for pine, 8,000 acres for jack pine, and 10,000 acres for balsam fir. Hardwood management would include even-aged management on 45,00 acres and uneven-aged management on 189,000 acres. The allowable sale quantities would be set at 90.1 million board-feet (MMBF) for the first decade and 132.1 MMBF for the second decade. Approximately 488,000 acres would be designated as suitable forest land. Old-growth stands would be designated within 170,000 acres. Special management measures would be taken to support Canada lynx habitat, and four management indicator species (American marten, ruffled grouse, cutleaf toothwort, and the mayfly/stonefly/caddisfly 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, encompassing a total of 50,0 acres, 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.). JF - EPA number: 050118, Executive Summary--36 pages and maps, Draft EIS--486 pages, Land and Resource management Plan--253 pages, Map Supplement, March 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 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/36372437?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-17&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST, BARAGA, GOGEBI, HOUGHTON, IRON, MARQUETTE, AND ONTONAGON COUNTIES, MICHIGAN. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST, BARAGA, GOGEBI, HOUGHTON, IRON, MARQUETTE, AND ONTONAGON COUNTIES, MICHIGAN. AN - 36371484; 050514D-050118_0002 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, hardwood management, aspen management, long-lived conifer management, and short-lived conifer management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) 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 102,000 acres for aspen, 53,000 areas for pine, 8,000 acres for jack pine, and 10,000 acres for balsam fir. Hardwood management would include even-aged management on 45,00 acres and uneven-aged management on 189,000 acres. The allowable sale quantities would be set at 90.1 million board-feet (MMBF) for the first decade and 132.1 MMBF for the second decade. Approximately 488,000 acres would be designated as suitable forest land. Old-growth stands would be designated within 170,000 acres. Special management measures would be taken to support Canada lynx habitat, and four management indicator species (American marten, ruffled grouse, cutleaf toothwort, and the mayfly/stonefly/caddisfly 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, encompassing a total of 50,0 acres, 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.). JF - EPA number: 050118, Executive Summary--36 pages and maps, Draft EIS--486 pages, Land and Resource management Plan--253 pages, Map Supplement, March 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 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/36371484?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-17&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST, BARAGA, GOGEBI, HOUGHTON, IRON, MARQUETTE, AND ONTONAGON COUNTIES, MICHIGAN. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST, BARAGA, GOGEBI, HOUGHTON, IRON, MARQUETTE, AND ONTONAGON COUNTIES, MICHIGAN. AN - 36371081; 050514D-050118_0004 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, hardwood management, aspen management, long-lived conifer management, and short-lived conifer management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) 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 102,000 acres for aspen, 53,000 areas for pine, 8,000 acres for jack pine, and 10,000 acres for balsam fir. Hardwood management would include even-aged management on 45,00 acres and uneven-aged management on 189,000 acres. The allowable sale quantities would be set at 90.1 million board-feet (MMBF) for the first decade and 132.1 MMBF for the second decade. Approximately 488,000 acres would be designated as suitable forest land. Old-growth stands would be designated within 170,000 acres. Special management measures would be taken to support Canada lynx habitat, and four management indicator species (American marten, ruffled grouse, cutleaf toothwort, and the mayfly/stonefly/caddisfly 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, encompassing a total of 50,0 acres, 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.). JF - EPA number: 050118, Executive Summary--36 pages and maps, Draft EIS--486 pages, Land and Resource management Plan--253 pages, Map Supplement, March 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 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/36371081?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-17&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36437292; 11444 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wildland fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for shrt periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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: 050104, 537 pages, March 10, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36437292?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%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, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MUIR WOODS NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FORT POINT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36365044; 050505D-050104_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fire management plan (FMP for lands within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, and Fort Point National Historic Site The FMP that currently applies to these areas was adopted in 1993. The new plan would reflect recent changes in fire management policy and the addition of newly acquired lands within the park boundary since the 1993 FMP was adopted. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to watershed processes, air quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife and important wildlife habitat, special status species, cultural resources, human health and safety, visitor use and visitor experience, park operations, and socioeconomics. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing 1993 FMP, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would promote hazard reduction and restricted fire use for research and resource enhancement. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would promote multiple treatments for hazard reduction and resource enhancement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure that firefighters and public safety were the highest priorities for all fire management activities; reduce wildland fire risk to private and public property; protect natural resources from the adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management wherever appropriate to sustain and restore natural resources; preserve historic structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources from adverse impacts of fire and fire management activities; use fire management where ever appropriate to rehabilitate or restore these cultural resources; refine management practices by improving the knowledge and understanding of fire through research and monitoring; develop and maintain staff expertise in all aspects of fire management; effectively integrate the fire management program into park and park partner activities; foster informed public participation in fire management activities; and foster and maintain interagency fire management partnerships and contribute to the firefighting efforts of local, state, and national authorities. Nonnative, invasive plants would be removed or eliminated from some areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased prescribed burning and mechanical treatments would destroy vegetation and disturb soils, leaving some areas denuded for shrt periods following management encroachments. Surface water flows would suffer temporarily from hydrologic changes and sedimentation. The levels of volatile organic compounds would significantly degrade air quality, and smoke generation from prescribed fire would reduce visibility and degrade visual quality during immediately and after burns. Special status species of butterflies, fish, reptiles, birds, and mice would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: General Authorities Act of 1970, 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: 050104, 537 pages, March 10, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Fort Point National Historic Site KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - Muir Woods National Monument KW - General Authorities Act of 1970, Program 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/36365044?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MUIR+WOODS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+AND+FORT+POINT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%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, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2003). AN - 36445148; 11428 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project to provide for salmon and steelhead trout habitat restoration along 42 miles of prime habitat on Battle Creek and six miles of habitat on its tributaries in California is proposed. The project operates under a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license held by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The upper limit of the study area on North Fork Battle Creek is the absolute natural fish barrier above the North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam, 14 miles upstream of the confluence. The upper limit of the study area on South Fork Battle Creek is the natural fish barrier above the South Diversion Dam. The lower project limit is nine miles upstream of the confluence of Battle Creek and the Sacramento River at a location just below the confluence of the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace channel and the mainstream of Battle Creek. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of July 2003. The supplemental draft EIS addresses updated information regarding the project that has come to light since publication of the draft EIS. The preferred Five Dam Removal Alternative would involve removal of the Wildcat, South, Soap Creek Feeder, Lower Ripley Creek Feeder, and Coleman diversion dams. In addition, fish screens and fish ladders would be installed at North Battle Creek Feeder, Eagle Canyon, and Inskip diversion dams. Tailrace connectors would be installed to convey water directly from the Inskip and South powerhouses to downstream canals to meet several fishery restoration goals. A penstock bypass facility would be replaced at Inskip powerhouse. Springs at the Eagle Canyon, Soap Creek/Bluff, Lower Ripley, and Darrah Springs areas would release flows to adjacent stream sections. Water leaving the South powerhouse would be conveyed through a new connector (a free-flow tunnel) and outlet works to the Inskip Canal. Water leaving the Inskip powerhouse would be conveyed through a new full-flow buried pipeline and outlet works to the Coleman Canal. The South powerhouse bypass would be integrated with the new tailrace connector to prevent the mixing of North Fork and South Fork flows. The Inskip powerhouse bypass would be replaced with a new pipeline and chute system that would prevent the mixing of these flows and ensure full-flow delivery of water to the Coleman Canal. The project would be supported by a detailed facility monitoring plan, water diversion rights agreements, a water acquisition fund, and an adaptive management fund. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Modification of the hydroelectric facilities and operations would enable safe passage for naturally produced salmonids and would facilitate their growth and recovery in the Sacramento River and its tributaries. The benefiting salmonids would include Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon, state- and federally listed as threatened; Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon, state- and federally listed at endangered; and Central Valley steelhead trout, federally listed as threatened. The project would also provide substantial benefits to amphibian habitat by reducing adverse effects of flow fluctuations and by increasing minimum in stream flows. In relation to power generation, the annual power benefits associated with the preferred alternative would be greater than the increased annual total and going-forward cost of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Significant construction-related impacts to riparian and wetland habitat would result from the project. Potential habitat disturbances could affect a number of special status species, including valley elderberry longhorn beetle, foothill yellow-legged frog, northwestern pond turtle, yellow-breasted chat, nesting raptors, and bats, though these impacts would be reduced to insignificance. Certain improvements would degrade visual aesthetics in the area of the Oasis Springs Lodge. Removal of the Wildcat and Coleman diversion dams and modification of the Eagle Canyon and Inskip diversion dams would result in the destruction or alteration of historically significant structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0038D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050090, 267 pages and maps, March 3, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-13 KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Battle Creek KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36445148?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2003%29.&rft.title=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2003%29.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2003). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - BATTLE CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2003). AN - 36367450; 050368D-050090_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project to provide for salmon and steelhead trout habitat restoration along 42 miles of prime habitat on Battle Creek and six miles of habitat on its tributaries in California is proposed. The project operates under a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license held by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The upper limit of the study area on North Fork Battle Creek is the absolute natural fish barrier above the North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion Dam, 14 miles upstream of the confluence. The upper limit of the study area on South Fork Battle Creek is the natural fish barrier above the South Diversion Dam. The lower project limit is nine miles upstream of the confluence of Battle Creek and the Sacramento River at a location just below the confluence of the Coleman Powerhouse tailrace channel and the mainstream of Battle Creek. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of July 2003. The supplemental draft EIS addresses updated information regarding the project that has come to light since publication of the draft EIS. The preferred Five Dam Removal Alternative would involve removal of the Wildcat, South, Soap Creek Feeder, Lower Ripley Creek Feeder, and Coleman diversion dams. In addition, fish screens and fish ladders would be installed at North Battle Creek Feeder, Eagle Canyon, and Inskip diversion dams. Tailrace connectors would be installed to convey water directly from the Inskip and South powerhouses to downstream canals to meet several fishery restoration goals. A penstock bypass facility would be replaced at Inskip powerhouse. Springs at the Eagle Canyon, Soap Creek/Bluff, Lower Ripley, and Darrah Springs areas would release flows to adjacent stream sections. Water leaving the South powerhouse would be conveyed through a new connector (a free-flow tunnel) and outlet works to the Inskip Canal. Water leaving the Inskip powerhouse would be conveyed through a new full-flow buried pipeline and outlet works to the Coleman Canal. The South powerhouse bypass would be integrated with the new tailrace connector to prevent the mixing of North Fork and South Fork flows. The Inskip powerhouse bypass would be replaced with a new pipeline and chute system that would prevent the mixing of these flows and ensure full-flow delivery of water to the Coleman Canal. The project would be supported by a detailed facility monitoring plan, water diversion rights agreements, a water acquisition fund, and an adaptive management fund. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Modification of the hydroelectric facilities and operations would enable safe passage for naturally produced salmonids and would facilitate their growth and recovery in the Sacramento River and its tributaries. The benefiting salmonids would include Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon, state- and federally listed as threatened; Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon, state- and federally listed at endangered; and Central Valley steelhead trout, federally listed as threatened. The project would also provide substantial benefits to amphibian habitat by reducing adverse effects of flow fluctuations and by increasing minimum in stream flows. In relation to power generation, the annual power benefits associated with the preferred alternative would be greater than the increased annual total and going-forward cost of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Significant construction-related impacts to riparian and wetland habitat would result from the project. Potential habitat disturbances could affect a number of special status species, including valley elderberry longhorn beetle, foothill yellow-legged frog, northwestern pond turtle, yellow-breasted chat, nesting raptors, and bats, though these impacts would be reduced to insignificance. Certain improvements would degrade visual aesthetics in the area of the Oasis Springs Lodge. Removal of the Wildcat and Coleman diversion dams and modification of the Eagle Canyon and Inskip diversion dams would result in the destruction or alteration of historically significant structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0038D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050090, 267 pages and maps, March 3, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-13 KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites KW - Insects KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Battle Creek KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2003%29.&rft.title=BATTLE+CREEK+SALMON+AND+STEELHEAD+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2003%29.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY HILL MINE EXPANSION, BATTLE MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 1997). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - RUBY HILL MINE EXPANSION, BATTLE MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 1997). AN - 36373066; 050318D-050087_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The operation of an open-pit gold mine by the Homestake Mining Company within the historic Eureka Mining District in central Nevada, is proposed. The project area is located 0.7 miles northwest of Eureka, Nevada, in an area known for the production of lead, silver, and gold during the late 1800's. Issues of concern include air quality, geology and minerals, paleontology, water quality and quantity, soils, vegetation resources, woodland products, wildlife and fisheries resources special status species, land use authorization and access, recreation and wilderness, visual resources, cultural heritage, social and economic values, noise and blasting vibrations, and hazardous materials and wastes. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of January 1997. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action plus the Partial Backfilling Alternative. This draft supplemental EIS addresses a newly proposed action and the No Action Alternative. The proposed action would include mine development and surface disturbance on a total of 744 acres, including 190 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and 54 acres of private land owned by Homestake. During the expected nine-year life of the project, which would include seven years of mining and two years of reclamation activities, a total of 60 million tons of waste rock, 130 million tons of alluvial overburden, and 18 million tons of ore would be removed from the mine. Most of the waste rock and all of the ore would require drilling and blasting. Several blasts would occur each day. Mine waste would be hauled from the open pit to one of two proposed waste rock dumps and dumped in 50-foot lifts. The Partial Backfilling Alternative, outlined in the final EIS, would significantly reduce the amount of waste rock placed in the dumps and increase the amount of re-vegetated surface area. Other project facilities would include a crushing, grinding, and agglomeration facility; heap leaching facilities; and an office building and parking lot, a warehouses and shop, growth media stockpiles, a soil borrow source, and power line and water pipeline corridors. These project components would interconnected by haul roads, service roads, and the main access road connecting the facility with US 50. Runoff would be directed around the open pit and the general mine site by diversion ditches constructed up gradient of the general mine site. Also under consideration in the final EIS were two rock dump site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the employment of an average of 225 workers during the construction period and 121 permanent workers through the life of the operation. The total annual payroll would be $5.2 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Geochemical testing indicates that arsenic and aluminum could leach from the alluvium and oxidized limestone; extremely low levels of arsenic could reach groundwater. Of the 744 acres disturbed by mining operations, 451 acres would be tree-dominated land and the remainder would be shrub-dominated land. Approximately 34 animal unit months (AUMs) of forage would be lost to livestock grazing permittees during the project and three AUMs would be permanently displaced. Mine operations would result in the loss of habitat for mule deer and breeding birds and the potential loss of habitat for threatened and endangered species. The waste rock dump sites would create a visual contrast with the surrounding countryside. Mining would displace 190 acres of dispersed recreation land, 25 acres of which would be lost permanently. Noise levels would increase slightly for Eureka residents. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 96-0318D, Volume 20, Number 4 and 96-0543F, Volume 20, Number 6. JF - EPA number: 050087, 373 pages and maps, March 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/BM/PL-05/002+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Roads KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife KW - Nevada 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/36373066?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+HILL+MINE+EXPANSION%2C+BATTLE+MOUNTAIN+DISTRICT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+1997%29.&rft.title=RUBY+HILL+MINE+EXPANSION%2C+BATTLE+MOUNTAIN+DISTRICT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+1997%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY HILL MINE EXPANSION, BATTLE MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 1997). AN - 16358206; 11425 AB - PURPOSE: The operation of an open-pit gold mine by the Homestake Mining Company within the historic Eureka Mining District in central Nevada, is proposed. The project area is located 0.7 miles northwest of Eureka, Nevada, in an area known for the production of lead, silver, and gold during the late 1800's. Issues of concern include air quality, geology and minerals, paleontology, water quality and quantity, soils, vegetation resources, woodland products, wildlife and fisheries resources special status species, land use authorization and access, recreation and wilderness, visual resources, cultural heritage, social and economic values, noise and blasting vibrations, and hazardous materials and wastes. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of January 1997. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action plus the Partial Backfilling Alternative. This draft supplemental EIS addresses a newly proposed action and the No Action Alternative. The proposed action would include mine development and surface disturbance on a total of 744 acres, including 190 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and 54 acres of private land owned by Homestake. During the expected nine-year life of the project, which would include seven years of mining and two years of reclamation activities, a total of 60 million tons of waste rock, 130 million tons of alluvial overburden, and 18 million tons of ore would be removed from the mine. Most of the waste rock and all of the ore would require drilling and blasting. Several blasts would occur each day. Mine waste would be hauled from the open pit to one of two proposed waste rock dumps and dumped in 50-foot lifts. The Partial Backfilling Alternative, outlined in the final EIS, would significantly reduce the amount of waste rock placed in the dumps and increase the amount of re-vegetated surface area. Other project facilities would include a crushing, grinding, and agglomeration facility; heap leaching facilities; and an office building and parking lot, a warehouses and shop, growth media stockpiles, a soil borrow source, and power line and water pipeline corridors. These project components would interconnected by haul roads, service roads, and the main access road connecting the facility with US 50. Runoff would be directed around the open pit and the general mine site by diversion ditches constructed up gradient of the general mine site. Also under consideration in the final EIS were two rock dump site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the employment of an average of 225 workers during the construction period and 121 permanent workers through the life of the operation. The total annual payroll would be $5.2 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Geochemical testing indicates that arsenic and aluminum could leach from the alluvium and oxidized limestone; extremely low levels of arsenic could reach groundwater. Of the 744 acres disturbed by mining operations, 451 acres would be tree-dominated land and the remainder would be shrub-dominated land. Approximately 34 animal unit months (AUMs) of forage would be lost to livestock grazing permittees during the project and three AUMs would be permanently displaced. Mine operations would result in the loss of habitat for mule deer and breeding birds and the potential loss of habitat for threatened and endangered species. The waste rock dump sites would create a visual contrast with the surrounding countryside. Mining would displace 190 acres of dispersed recreation land, 25 acres of which would be lost permanently. Noise levels would increase slightly for Eureka residents. 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 abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 96-0318D, Volume 20, Number 4 and 96-0543F, Volume 20, Number 6. JF - EPA number: 050087, 373 pages and maps, March 2, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/BM/PL-05/002+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Roads KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife KW - Nevada 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/16358206?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+HILL+MINE+EXPANSION%2C+BATTLE+MOUNTAIN+DISTRICT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+1997%29.&rft.title=RUBY+HILL+MINE+EXPANSION%2C+BATTLE+MOUNTAIN+DISTRICT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+1997%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PETERSBURG NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD, PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA. AN - 36431028; 11421 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the Petersburg National Battlefield in Petersburg, Virginia is proposed. The Civil War battles associated with Petersburg, which occurred between June of 1864 and April 1865, constituted the longest entrenched siege of any city in North America and include the climatic Battle of Five Forks, known as the "Waterloo of the Confederacy". The fall of Petersburg into Union hands precluded the surrender of Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy. Many changes have occurred at the national battlefield, in the surrounding area, and in park management practices since the park's last master plan was approved in 1965. 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 direct the park's priorities toward the preservation of nationally significant battlefield resources both inside and outside the park. Under this alternative, the boundary would expand by 7,238 acres and partnerships with communities and Civil War organizations would be maximized to protect remaining nationally significant battlefield that have a high degree of integrity. Visitors would continue to use the existing visitor center for orientation and participation in interpretive activities. The visitor contact station at Five Forks Battlefield would be relocated. Theses would be expanded to allow the telling of the broad stories of the Petersburg Campaign. Alternative C would implement a dynamic interpretation scheme, with resources geared toward interactive and animated programs using modern technology where appropriate, the latest interpretive tools, and an upgraded interpretive center. There would be a limited level of boundary expansion (2,030) acres) for protecting existing resources. Visitors could begin to experience the park at any of the five units, with new themes and expanded programs and facilities being offered at Grant's Headquarters at City Point, the Home Front in Old Town Petersburg, Poplar Grove National Cemetery, and Five Forks Battlefields. Partnerships that protect nationally significant battlefields outside the park's boundary would be emphasized. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, the cultural landscape would serve as the mechanism by which the Civil War stories would be told. A boundary expansion of 7,238 acres would preserve nationally significant battlefields, protect existing park resources, and create opportunities for visitors to access these significant Civil War landscapes and resources. Selected earthworks, viewsheds, and landscapes would be rehabilitated to reflect their 1864/1865 appearance. Similar to Alternative C, Alternative D would allow visitors to begin their experience at any of the five units, with expanded programs and facilities developed at the same sites as under Alternative C. First costs of implementation of alternatives B, C, and D, not including land acquisition costs, are estimated at $7.97 million, $14.6 million, and $15.0 million, respectively. Respective land acquisition lots are estimated at $25.6 million, $10.2 million, and $25.6 million. Respective annual operations and management costs are $3.5 million, $4.5 million, $4.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any of the action alternatives would protect and interpret resources associated with the campaign, the siege, and defense of Petersburg. Land acquisitions would ensure that conflicting development did not occur in the vicinity of important battlefields. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under alternatives B and D, development of new facilities, including roads, trails, and parking areas, would result in the short- and long-term displacement of vegetation. Archaeological resource sites could also be disturbed under these alternatives. 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 National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0436D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050083, 175 pages and maps, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Petersburg National Battlefield KW - Virginia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36431028?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PETERSBURG+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+PETERSBURG%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=PETERSBURG+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+PETERSBURG%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Petersburg, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PETERSBURG NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD, PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - PETERSBURG NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD, PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA. AN - 36369878; 050365F-050083_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the Petersburg National Battlefield in Petersburg, Virginia is proposed. The Civil War battles associated with Petersburg, which occurred between June of 1864 and April 1865, constituted the longest entrenched siege of any city in North America and include the climatic Battle of Five Forks, known as the "Waterloo of the Confederacy". The fall of Petersburg into Union hands precluded the surrender of Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy. Many changes have occurred at the national battlefield, in the surrounding area, and in park management practices since the park's last master plan was approved in 1965. 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 direct the park's priorities toward the preservation of nationally significant battlefield resources both inside and outside the park. Under this alternative, the boundary would expand by 7,238 acres and partnerships with communities and Civil War organizations would be maximized to protect remaining nationally significant battlefield that have a high degree of integrity. Visitors would continue to use the existing visitor center for orientation and participation in interpretive activities. The visitor contact station at Five Forks Battlefield would be relocated. Theses would be expanded to allow the telling of the broad stories of the Petersburg Campaign. Alternative C would implement a dynamic interpretation scheme, with resources geared toward interactive and animated programs using modern technology where appropriate, the latest interpretive tools, and an upgraded interpretive center. There would be a limited level of boundary expansion (2,030) acres) for protecting existing resources. Visitors could begin to experience the park at any of the five units, with new themes and expanded programs and facilities being offered at Grant's Headquarters at City Point, the Home Front in Old Town Petersburg, Poplar Grove National Cemetery, and Five Forks Battlefields. Partnerships that protect nationally significant battlefields outside the park's boundary would be emphasized. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, the cultural landscape would serve as the mechanism by which the Civil War stories would be told. A boundary expansion of 7,238 acres would preserve nationally significant battlefields, protect existing park resources, and create opportunities for visitors to access these significant Civil War landscapes and resources. Selected earthworks, viewsheds, and landscapes would be rehabilitated to reflect their 1864/1865 appearance. Similar to Alternative C, Alternative D would allow visitors to begin their experience at any of the five units, with expanded programs and facilities developed at the same sites as under Alternative C. First costs of implementation of alternatives B, C, and D, not including land acquisition costs, are estimated at $7.97 million, $14.6 million, and $15.0 million, respectively. Respective land acquisition lots are estimated at $25.6 million, $10.2 million, and $25.6 million. Respective annual operations and management costs are $3.5 million, $4.5 million, $4.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any of the action alternatives would protect and interpret resources associated with the campaign, the siege, and defense of Petersburg. Land acquisitions would ensure that conflicting development did not occur in the vicinity of important battlefields. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under alternatives B and D, development of new facilities, including roads, trails, and parking areas, would result in the short- and long-term displacement of vegetation. Archaeological resource sites could also be disturbed under these alternatives. 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 National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0436D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050083, 175 pages and maps, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Petersburg National Battlefield KW - Virginia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369878?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PETERSBURG+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+PETERSBURG%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=PETERSBURG+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+PETERSBURG%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Petersburg, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PETERSBURG NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD, PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - PETERSBURG NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD, PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA. AN - 36368631; 050365F-050083_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the Petersburg National Battlefield in Petersburg, Virginia is proposed. The Civil War battles associated with Petersburg, which occurred between June of 1864 and April 1865, constituted the longest entrenched siege of any city in North America and include the climatic Battle of Five Forks, known as the "Waterloo of the Confederacy". The fall of Petersburg into Union hands precluded the surrender of Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy. Many changes have occurred at the national battlefield, in the surrounding area, and in park management practices since the park's last master plan was approved in 1965. 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 direct the park's priorities toward the preservation of nationally significant battlefield resources both inside and outside the park. Under this alternative, the boundary would expand by 7,238 acres and partnerships with communities and Civil War organizations would be maximized to protect remaining nationally significant battlefield that have a high degree of integrity. Visitors would continue to use the existing visitor center for orientation and participation in interpretive activities. The visitor contact station at Five Forks Battlefield would be relocated. Theses would be expanded to allow the telling of the broad stories of the Petersburg Campaign. Alternative C would implement a dynamic interpretation scheme, with resources geared toward interactive and animated programs using modern technology where appropriate, the latest interpretive tools, and an upgraded interpretive center. There would be a limited level of boundary expansion (2,030) acres) for protecting existing resources. Visitors could begin to experience the park at any of the five units, with new themes and expanded programs and facilities being offered at Grant's Headquarters at City Point, the Home Front in Old Town Petersburg, Poplar Grove National Cemetery, and Five Forks Battlefields. Partnerships that protect nationally significant battlefields outside the park's boundary would be emphasized. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, the cultural landscape would serve as the mechanism by which the Civil War stories would be told. A boundary expansion of 7,238 acres would preserve nationally significant battlefields, protect existing park resources, and create opportunities for visitors to access these significant Civil War landscapes and resources. Selected earthworks, viewsheds, and landscapes would be rehabilitated to reflect their 1864/1865 appearance. Similar to Alternative C, Alternative D would allow visitors to begin their experience at any of the five units, with expanded programs and facilities developed at the same sites as under Alternative C. First costs of implementation of alternatives B, C, and D, not including land acquisition costs, are estimated at $7.97 million, $14.6 million, and $15.0 million, respectively. Respective land acquisition lots are estimated at $25.6 million, $10.2 million, and $25.6 million. Respective annual operations and management costs are $3.5 million, $4.5 million, $4.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any of the action alternatives would protect and interpret resources associated with the campaign, the siege, and defense of Petersburg. Land acquisitions would ensure that conflicting development did not occur in the vicinity of important battlefields. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under alternatives B and D, development of new facilities, including roads, trails, and parking areas, would result in the short- and long-term displacement of vegetation. Archaeological resource sites could also be disturbed under these alternatives. 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 National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0436D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050083, 175 pages and maps, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Petersburg National Battlefield KW - Virginia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368631?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PETERSBURG+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+PETERSBURG%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=PETERSBURG+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+PETERSBURG%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Petersburg, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ENTREGA PIPELINE PROJECT, COLORADO AND WYOMING (DOCKET NO. CP04-413-00, ET AL.). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - ENTREGA PIPELINE PROJECT, COLORADO AND WYOMING (DOCKET NO. CP04-413-00, ET AL.). AN - 36367449; 050310D-050082_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Entrega Gas Pipeline, Inc. for the construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline system in Colorado and Wyoming is proposed. The pipeline would extend from the Cheyenne Hub in Weld County, Colorado to Meeker Hub in Rio Blanco County, Colorado and Wamsutter in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The pipeline system would consist of 327.5 miles of 36- and 42-inch-diameter new pipeline; 136 miles of 36-inch-diameter, including 86.2 miles in Rio Blanco and Moffat counties, Colorado and 49.8 miles in Sweetwater County, Wyoming; 191.5 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline, including 183 miles in Sweetwater Carbon, and Albany counties, Wyoming and 8.5 miles in Larimer and Weld counties, Colorado. three new compressor stations; seven meters at interconnections with other pipeline systems; four pig launchers and four pig receivers; 22 mainline valves; and the associated facilities, including access roads and power lines. The system would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet or natural gas per day from the Meeker Hub Compressor Station to interconnections at Wansutter and the Cheyenne Hub. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would transport natural gas from supply basins in the central Rocky Mountains to markets in the Midwest and Central U.S. This delivery capacity would meet increasing gas supply in the Piceance and neighboring production basins that is not being matched by a current increase in pipeline capacity to transport the gas to the market. The construction project would employ 2,000 to 2,200 workers during the summer and fall of 2005 and pay $6.0 million in annual taxes to the affected counties. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a no Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative, the user of existing infrastructure to transport gas, and alternative routes for the pipeline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the system would disturb 5,064 acres of land, of which 2,084 acres would be converted to permanent rights-of-way. Affected lands would include 1,536 acres of grassland, 3,078 acres of scrublands, and 199 acres of farmland, including wetlands, and 11 acres of woodland. The primary land to be affected would be rangeland used for livestock grazing. Approximately 44 percent of the land affected by the system would be publicly held, while the remainder is private land. Flash floods and sink holes in Rio Blanco and Moffat counties could damage the pipeline. The pipeline would traverse numerous water bodies, including two major perennial flows that would require directional drilling and 32 streams that support fish species. The pipeline would traverse 29 miles of elk, mule deer, and pronghorn winter habitat and 22, 51, and eight miles of mule deer, pronghorn, and elk crucial winter habitat, respectively, in Wyoming. The project construction schedule would overlap with the breeding season for many migratory birds, including raptors. Habitat for five federally protected plant species, four protected fish species, one protected amphibian, one bird, and two mammals could be affected. Several other sensitive species would be affected. Three wildlife management areas would be traversed. So far 40 cultural resource sites in Colorado and 49 sites in Wyoming eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places have been identified that cold be affected by construction and operational activities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). JF - EPA number: 050082, 621 pages and maps, February 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0175D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Livestock KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Colorado KW - Wyoming KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367449?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENTREGA+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+COLORADO+AND+WYOMING+%28DOCKET+NO.+CP04-413-00%2C+ET+AL.%29.&rft.title=ENTREGA+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+COLORADO+AND+WYOMING+%28DOCKET+NO.+CP04-413-00%2C+ET+AL.%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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ENTREGA PIPELINE PROJECT, COLORADO AND WYOMING (DOCKET NO. CP04-413-00, ET AL.). AN - 16345824; 11420 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Entrega Gas Pipeline, Inc. for the construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline system in Colorado and Wyoming is proposed. The pipeline would extend from the Cheyenne Hub in Weld County, Colorado to Meeker Hub in Rio Blanco County, Colorado and Wamsutter in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The pipeline system would consist of 327.5 miles of 36- and 42-inch-diameter new pipeline; 136 miles of 36-inch-diameter, including 86.2 miles in Rio Blanco and Moffat counties, Colorado and 49.8 miles in Sweetwater County, Wyoming; 191.5 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline, including 183 miles in Sweetwater Carbon, and Albany counties, Wyoming and 8.5 miles in Larimer and Weld counties, Colorado. three new compressor stations; seven meters at interconnections with other pipeline systems; four pig launchers and four pig receivers; 22 mainline valves; and the associated facilities, including access roads and power lines. The system would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet or natural gas per day from the Meeker Hub Compressor Station to interconnections at Wansutter and the Cheyenne Hub. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would transport natural gas from supply basins in the central Rocky Mountains to markets in the Midwest and Central U.S. This delivery capacity would meet increasing gas supply in the Piceance and neighboring production basins that is not being matched by a current increase in pipeline capacity to transport the gas to the market. The construction project would employ 2,000 to 2,200 workers during the summer and fall of 2005 and pay $6.0 million in annual taxes to the affected counties. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a no Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative, the user of existing infrastructure to transport gas, and alternative routes for the pipeline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the system would disturb 5,064 acres of land, of which 2,084 acres would be converted to permanent rights-of-way. Affected lands would include 1,536 acres of grassland, 3,078 acres of scrublands, and 199 acres of farmland, including wetlands, and 11 acres of woodland. The primary land to be affected would be rangeland used for livestock grazing. Approximately 44 percent of the land affected by the system would be publicly held, while the remainder is private land. Flash floods and sink holes in Rio Blanco and Moffat counties could damage the pipeline. The pipeline would traverse numerous water bodies, including two major perennial flows that would require directional drilling and 32 streams that support fish species. The pipeline would traverse 29 miles of elk, mule deer, and pronghorn winter habitat and 22, 51, and eight miles of mule deer, pronghorn, and elk crucial winter habitat, respectively, in Wyoming. The project construction schedule would overlap with the breeding season for many migratory birds, including raptors. Habitat for five federally protected plant species, four protected fish species, one protected amphibian, one bird, and two mammals could be affected. Several other sensitive species would be affected. Three wildlife management areas would be traversed. So far 40 cultural resource sites in Colorado and 49 sites in Wyoming eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places have been identified that cold be affected by construction and operational activities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). JF - EPA number: 050082, 621 pages and maps, February 25, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0175D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Livestock KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Ranges KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Colorado KW - Wyoming KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16345824?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENTREGA+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+COLORADO+AND+WYOMING+%28DOCKET+NO.+CP04-413-00%2C+ET+AL.%29.&rft.title=ENTREGA+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+COLORADO+AND+WYOMING+%28DOCKET+NO.+CP04-413-00%2C+ET+AL.%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIPELINE/SOUTH PIPELINE PIT EXPANSION PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - PIPELINE/SOUTH PIPELINE PIT EXPANSION PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36371989; 050381F-050069_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of gold mining operations at the Pipeline/South Pipeline Mine within the Gold Acres Mining District in Lander County, Nevada is proposed. The project area lies 30 miles southeast of Battle Mountain. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of February 2000. This final supplement to the final EIS of addresses the applicant's proposal, a No Action Alternative, and two additional alternative. Under the applicant's proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, Cortez Gold Mines, Inc. (GCM) would develop the South Pipeline ore deposit and construct associated facilities to continue to extract gold from the mined ore within the project area. GCM would conduct certain activities at the approved Cortez Facilities without substantial modification to those facilities. In addition, the applicant's proposal would include a right-of-way (ROW)application for construction of a water pipeline and plans to modify a portion of the Gold Acres Facilities. The principal components of the proposed action would include: expansion of the Pipeline open pit, which would eventually include the South Pipeline open pit; a new heap leach facility; expansion of the existing Pipeline waste rock dump and tailings facility; extension of process solution pipelines from the South Pipeline leach facility to other process facilities within the project area; new ore and sub-grade ore and growth media stockpiles; increasing of the Pipeline mill throughput; development of new groundwater extraction wells; rerouting of a portion of Cortez Mine Road; abandonment of a portion of the ROW for the Gold Acres haul road; establishment of ROW for a pipeline to deliver water to Dean Ranch; and delivery of up to 6,000 gallons per minute (gpm) to the adjacent Dean Ranch via the ROW for consumption on private land. The rate of groundwater pumping and disposal would be no greater than 34,500 gpm. The applicant's proposal would not alter CGM's current average mining rate of 150,000 tons per day (tpd); the maximum rate would be 250,000 tpd. An estimated 150 million tons of ore would be mined from the South Pipeline open pit, resulting in 450 million tons of waste rock. Most of the waste rock (250 million tons) would be hauled to a mined-out portion of the South Pipeline open pit. The project would also include dewatering and reclamation provisions. The mine life would extend eight years, with an additional two years for further ore processing and site closure. The schedule could change if reserves were found to be greater than expected or economic conditions change. A Complete Backfill Alternative, also under consideration, would dispose of waste rock into the Pipeline/South Pipeline and Gap open pits Under the No Backfill Alternative, the 590 million tons of waste rock that would be mined under the proposed action would be disposed in the existing Pipeline/South Pipeline waste rock dump and on a new dump adjacent to the Gap open pit. The second and third action alternative would involve alternation of the mining sequence and backfilling provisions. The applicant's proposal has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The applicant's proposal would extend the operational life of CGM's mining and processing operations by eight years and continue to employ 450 to 500 workers during that period. Approximately 4.58 million ounces of gold and minor amounts of silver would be generated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The applicant's proposal would disturb 4,450 acres of surface in addition to that already disturbed, resulting in an overall disturbed area of up to 7,676 acres of vegetation and associated wildlife habitat. Implementation of the Complete Backfill Alternative would disturb 3,841 acres of surface in addition to that already disturbed. Mining and related activities would result in restriction of future mineral resource extraction due to facility siting, dewatering of streams and springs and resultant loss of vegetation including special status species, degradation of groundwater quality, introduction of noxious weeds to disturbed areas, Blasting activities would result in significant noise emissions, and accidental spills of hazardous materials would pose a hazard to human populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs and the draft supplement to the final EIS, see 99-0336D, Volume 23, Number 4,00-0170F, Volume 24, Number 2, and 04-0022D, Volume 29, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050069, 743 pages and maps, February 16, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Research and Development KW - Agency number: BLM/BM/PL-05/003+1793 KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Land Management KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIPELINE%2FSOUTH+PIPELINE+PIT+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=PIPELINE%2FSOUTH+PIPELINE+PIT+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIPELINE/SOUTH PIPELINE PIT EXPANSION PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 16358169; 11407 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of gold mining operations at the Pipeline/South Pipeline Mine within the Gold Acres Mining District in Lander County, Nevada is proposed. The project area lies 30 miles southeast of Battle Mountain. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of February 2000. This final supplement to the final EIS of addresses the applicant's proposal, a No Action Alternative, and two additional alternative. Under the applicant's proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, Cortez Gold Mines, Inc. (GCM) would develop the South Pipeline ore deposit and construct associated facilities to continue to extract gold from the mined ore within the project area. GCM would conduct certain activities at the approved Cortez Facilities without substantial modification to those facilities. In addition, the applicant's proposal would include a right-of-way (ROW)application for construction of a water pipeline and plans to modify a portion of the Gold Acres Facilities. The principal components of the proposed action would include: expansion of the Pipeline open pit, which would eventually include the South Pipeline open pit; a new heap leach facility; expansion of the existing Pipeline waste rock dump and tailings facility; extension of process solution pipelines from the South Pipeline leach facility to other process facilities within the project area; new ore and sub-grade ore and growth media stockpiles; increasing of the Pipeline mill throughput; development of new groundwater extraction wells; rerouting of a portion of Cortez Mine Road; abandonment of a portion of the ROW for the Gold Acres haul road; establishment of ROW for a pipeline to deliver water to Dean Ranch; and delivery of up to 6,000 gallons per minute (gpm) to the adjacent Dean Ranch via the ROW for consumption on private land. The rate of groundwater pumping and disposal would be no greater than 34,500 gpm. The applicant's proposal would not alter CGM's current average mining rate of 150,000 tons per day (tpd); the maximum rate would be 250,000 tpd. An estimated 150 million tons of ore would be mined from the South Pipeline open pit, resulting in 450 million tons of waste rock. Most of the waste rock (250 million tons) would be hauled to a mined-out portion of the South Pipeline open pit. The project would also include dewatering and reclamation provisions. The mine life would extend eight years, with an additional two years for further ore processing and site closure. The schedule could change if reserves were found to be greater than expected or economic conditions change. A Complete Backfill Alternative, also under consideration, would dispose of waste rock into the Pipeline/South Pipeline and Gap open pits Under the No Backfill Alternative, the 590 million tons of waste rock that would be mined under the proposed action would be disposed in the existing Pipeline/South Pipeline waste rock dump and on a new dump adjacent to the Gap open pit. The second and third action alternative would involve alternation of the mining sequence and backfilling provisions. The applicant's proposal has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The applicant's proposal would extend the operational life of CGM's mining and processing operations by eight years and continue to employ 450 to 500 workers during that period. Approximately 4.58 million ounces of gold and minor amounts of silver would be generated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The applicant's proposal would disturb 4,450 acres of surface in addition to that already disturbed, resulting in an overall disturbed area of up to 7,676 acres of vegetation and associated wildlife habitat. Implementation of the Complete Backfill Alternative would disturb 3,841 acres of surface in addition to that already disturbed. Mining and related activities would result in restriction of future mineral resource extraction due to facility siting, dewatering of streams and springs and resultant loss of vegetation including special status species, degradation of groundwater quality, introduction of noxious weeds to disturbed areas, Blasting activities would result in significant noise emissions, and accidental spills of hazardous materials would pose a hazard to human populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs and the draft supplement to the final EIS, see 99-0336D, Volume 23, Number 4,00-0170F, Volume 24, Number 2, and 04-0022D, Volume 29, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050069, 743 pages and maps, February 16, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Research and Development KW - Agency number: BLM/BM/PL-05/003+1793 KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Land Management KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16358169?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIPELINE%2FSOUTH+PIPELINE+PIT+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=PIPELINE%2FSOUTH+PIPELINE+PIT+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 16, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH BELTS TRAVEL PLAN/MAGPIE-CONFEDERATE VEGETATION RESTORATION PROJECT, TOWNSEND AND HELENA RANGER DISTRICTS, HELENA NATIONAL FOREST, BROADWATER, LEWIS AND CLARK, AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 9 of 9] T2 - NORTH BELTS TRAVEL PLAN/MAGPIE-CONFEDERATE VEGETATION RESTORATION PROJECT, TOWNSEND AND HELENA RANGER DISTRICTS, HELENA NATIONAL FOREST, BROADWATER, LEWIS AND CLARK, AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 912105999; 11403-5_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a travel management vegetation treatment, and noxious weed management plans is proposed for the 199,860-acre North Belts Travel Plan/Maggie Confederate Vegetation Restoration Area of the Townsend and Helena ranger districts, Helena National Forest, Broadwater, Lewis and Clark, and Meagher counties, Montana. Issues addressed include those associated with the appropriate level of motorized and non-motorized use Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) vegetation treatment alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 6), would include seasonal restrictions on roads and motorized trails to protect big game security habitat and winter range; designation of routes/areas for seasonal hunting opportunity for disabled and elderly persons, including routes open in the Hiddel Valley area, Cochran Gulch, and between Vermont and Lambing Camp gulches; direct access to suitable parking within 300 feet of a road of trail designated for motorized use in areas where developed parking sites are not available; opening or closing of unclassified routes identified during 2003, including one mile for licensed vehicles, 8.6 miles opened for dual-use vehicles, 7.8 miles of motorized trail opened for year-round or seasonal use, 1.4 miles of non-motorized trail opened year-round, and permanent closure of 24.9 miles of unclassified routes; and road decommissioning via 14 new gates and 12 barriers other than gates, 33.9 miles of erosion control measures and drainage improvements and seeding and slash activities, ripping, seeding, and slashing along 60.1 miles, and recontouring of 13 miles, and conversion of 1.5 miles to non-motorized trail. Cost of plan implementation is estimated at $2.05 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The travel management plan would bring motorized use into balance with other resources while also protecting those resources, particularly elk security and water quality. The extent of roads and trails in designated road less areas would decline from 129.8 miles to 75.8 miles and in special use permit areas from 31.9 to 18.8. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road closures and restrictions would affect some recreationists. Snowmobile access area would drop from 113,548 acres to 63,686 acres. Travel restrictions would also reduce options for weed treatment as well as weed mapping, potentially resulting in weed infestations going unnoticed. There would be a high risk of weed spreading from continued public use on some open, motorized trails and roads, though this risk would be decreased by road and trail closures. Emergency response to fires would be hampered by the reduction in roaded access. Development and maintenance of the road system would be more involved and costly in the short-term. Obliteration of road and construction of new trail could affect cultural resources, and access allowed on roads remaining open to public use could result in further damage to cultural resources. 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 99-0244D Volume 23, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050065, 570 pages and maps, February 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 9 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fire Control KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Helena National Forest KW - Montana 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/912105999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+BELTS+TRAVEL+PLAN%2FMAGPIE-CONFEDERATE+VEGETATION+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+TOWNSEND+AND+HELENA+RANGER+DISTRICTS%2C+HELENA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BROADWATER%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=NORTH+BELTS+TRAVEL+PLAN%2FMAGPIE-CONFEDERATE+VEGETATION+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+TOWNSEND+AND+HELENA+RANGER+DISTRICTS%2C+HELENA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BROADWATER%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Helena, Montana; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH BELTS TRAVEL PLAN/MAGPIE-CONFEDERATE VEGETATION RESTORATION PROJECT, TOWNSEND AND HELENA RANGER DISTRICTS, HELENA NATIONAL FOREST, BROADWATER, LEWIS AND CLARK, AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 8 of 9] T2 - NORTH BELTS TRAVEL PLAN/MAGPIE-CONFEDERATE VEGETATION RESTORATION PROJECT, TOWNSEND AND HELENA RANGER DISTRICTS, HELENA NATIONAL FOREST, BROADWATER, LEWIS AND CLARK, AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 912105993; 11403-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a travel management vegetation treatment, and noxious weed management plans is proposed for the 199,860-acre North Belts Travel Plan/Maggie Confederate Vegetation Restoration Area of the Townsend and Helena ranger districts, Helena National Forest, Broadwater, Lewis and Clark, and Meagher counties, Montana. Issues addressed include those associated with the appropriate level of motorized and non-motorized use Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) vegetation treatment alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 6), would include seasonal restrictions on roads and motorized trails to protect big game security habitat and winter range; designation of routes/areas for seasonal hunting opportunity for disabled and elderly persons, including routes open in the Hiddel Valley area, Cochran Gulch, and between Vermont and Lambing Camp gulches; direct access to suitable parking within 300 feet of a road of trail designated for motorized use in areas where developed parking sites are not available; opening or closing of unclassified routes identified during 2003, including one mile for licensed vehicles, 8.6 miles opened for dual-use vehicles, 7.8 miles of motorized trail opened for year-round or seasonal use, 1.4 miles of non-motorized trail opened year-round, and permanent closure of 24.9 miles of unclassified routes; and road decommissioning via 14 new gates and 12 barriers other than gates, 33.9 miles of erosion control measures and drainage improvements and seeding and slash activities, ripping, seeding, and slashing along 60.1 miles, and recontouring of 13 miles, and conversion of 1.5 miles to non-motorized trail. Cost of plan implementation is estimated at $2.05 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The travel management plan would bring motorized use into balance with other resources while also protecting those resources, particularly elk security and water quality. The extent of roads and trails in designated road less areas would decline from 129.8 miles to 75.8 miles and in special use permit areas from 31.9 to 18.8. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road closures and restrictions would affect some recreationists. Snowmobile access area would drop from 113,548 acres to 63,686 acres. Travel restrictions would also reduce options for weed treatment as well as weed mapping, potentially resulting in weed infestations going unnoticed. There would be a high risk of weed spreading from continued public use on some open, motorized trails and roads, though this risk would be decreased by road and trail closures. Emergency response to fires would be hampered by the reduction in roaded access. Development and maintenance of the road system would be more involved and costly in the short-term. Obliteration of road and construction of new trail could affect cultural resources, and access allowed on roads remaining open to public use could result in further damage to cultural resources. 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 99-0244D Volume 23, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050065, 570 pages and maps, February 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fire Control KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Helena National Forest KW - Montana 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/912105993?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+BELTS+TRAVEL+PLAN%2FMAGPIE-CONFEDERATE+VEGETATION+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+TOWNSEND+AND+HELENA+RANGER+DISTRICTS%2C+HELENA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BROADWATER%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=NORTH+BELTS+TRAVEL+PLAN%2FMAGPIE-CONFEDERATE+VEGETATION+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+TOWNSEND+AND+HELENA+RANGER+DISTRICTS%2C+HELENA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BROADWATER%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Helena, Montana; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH BELTS TRAVEL PLAN/MAGPIE-CONFEDERATE VEGETATION RESTORATION PROJECT, TOWNSEND AND HELENA RANGER DISTRICTS, HELENA NATIONAL FOREST, BROADWATER, LEWIS AND CLARK, AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 7 of 9] T2 - NORTH BELTS TRAVEL PLAN/MAGPIE-CONFEDERATE VEGETATION RESTORATION PROJECT, TOWNSEND AND HELENA RANGER DISTRICTS, HELENA NATIONAL FOREST, BROADWATER, LEWIS AND CLARK, AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 912105986; 11403-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a travel management vegetation treatment, and noxious weed management plans is proposed for the 199,860-acre North Belts Travel Plan/Maggie Confederate Vegetation Restoration Area of the Townsend and Helena ranger districts, Helena National Forest, Broadwater, Lewis and Clark, and Meagher counties, Montana. Issues addressed include those associated with the appropriate level of motorized and non-motorized use Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) vegetation treatment alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 6), would include seasonal restrictions on roads and motorized trails to protect big game security habitat and winter range; designation of routes/areas for seasonal hunting opportunity for disabled and elderly persons, including routes open in the Hiddel Valley area, Cochran Gulch, and between Vermont and Lambing Camp gulches; direct access to suitable parking within 300 feet of a road of trail designated for motorized use in areas where developed parking sites are not available; opening or closing of unclassified routes identified during 2003, including one mile for licensed vehicles, 8.6 miles opened for dual-use vehicles, 7.8 miles of motorized trail opened for year-round or seasonal use, 1.4 miles of non-motorized trail opened year-round, and permanent closure of 24.9 miles of unclassified routes; and road decommissioning via 14 new gates and 12 barriers other than gates, 33.9 miles of erosion control measures and drainage improvements and seeding and slash activities, ripping, seeding, and slashing along 60.1 miles, and recontouring of 13 miles, and conversion of 1.5 miles to non-motorized trail. Cost of plan implementation is estimated at $2.05 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The travel management plan would bring motorized use into balance with other resources while also protecting those resources, particularly elk security and water quality. The extent of roads and trails in designated road less areas would decline from 129.8 miles to 75.8 miles and in special use permit areas from 31.9 to 18.8. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road closures and restrictions would affect some recreationists. Snowmobile access area would drop from 113,548 acres to 63,686 acres. Travel restrictions would also reduce options for weed treatment as well as weed mapping, potentially resulting in weed infestations going unnoticed. There would be a high risk of weed spreading from continued public use on some open, motorized trails and roads, though this risk would be decreased by road and trail closures. Emergency response to fires would be hampered by the reduction in roaded access. Development and maintenance of the road system would be more involved and costly in the short-term. Obliteration of road and construction of new trail could affect cultural resources, and access allowed on roads remaining open to public use could result in further damage to cultural resources. 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 99-0244D Volume 23, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050065, 570 pages and maps, February 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fire Control KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Helena National Forest KW - Montana 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/912105986?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+BELTS+TRAVEL+PLAN%2FMAGPIE-CONFEDERATE+VEGETATION+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+TOWNSEND+AND+HELENA+RANGER+DISTRICTS%2C+HELENA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BROADWATER%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=NORTH+BELTS+TRAVEL+PLAN%2FMAGPIE-CONFEDERATE+VEGETATION+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+TOWNSEND+AND+HELENA+RANGER+DISTRICTS%2C+HELENA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BROADWATER%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Helena, Montana; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH BELTS TRAVEL PLAN/MAGPIE-CONFEDERATE VEGETATION RESTORATION PROJECT, TOWNSEND AND HELENA RANGER DISTRICTS, HELENA NATIONAL FOREST, BROADWATER, LEWIS AND CLARK, AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 6 of 9] T2 - NORTH BELTS TRAVEL PLAN/MAGPIE-CONFEDERATE VEGETATION RESTORATION PROJECT, TOWNSEND AND HELENA RANGER DISTRICTS, HELENA NATIONAL FOREST, BROADWATER, LEWIS AND CLARK, AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 912105983; 11403-5_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a travel management vegetation treatment, and noxious weed management plans is proposed for the 199,860-acre North Belts Travel Plan/Maggie Confederate Vegetation Restoration Area of the Townsend and Helena ranger districts, Helena National Forest, Broadwater, Lewis and Clark, and Meagher counties, Montana. Issues addressed include those associated with the appropriate level of motorized and non-motorized use Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) vegetation treatment alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 6), would include seasonal restrictions on roads and motorized trails to protect big game security habitat and winter range; designation of routes/areas for seasonal hunting opportunity for disabled and elderly persons, including routes open in the Hiddel Valley area, Cochran Gulch, and between Vermont and Lambing Camp gulches; direct access to suitable parking within 300 feet of a road of trail designated for motorized use in areas where developed parking sites are not available; opening or closing of unclassified routes identified during 2003, including one mile for licensed vehicles, 8.6 miles opened for dual-use vehicles, 7.8 miles of motorized trail opened for year-round or seasonal use, 1.4 miles of non-motorized trail opened year-round, and permanent closure of 24.9 miles of unclassified routes; and road decommissioning via 14 new gates and 12 barriers other than gates, 33.9 miles of erosion control measures and drainage improvements and seeding and slash activities, ripping, seeding, and slashing along 60.1 miles, and recontouring of 13 miles, and conversion of 1.5 miles to non-motorized trail. Cost of plan implementation is estimated at $2.05 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The travel management plan would bring motorized use into balance with other resources while also protecting those resources, particularly elk security and water quality. The extent of roads and trails in designated road less areas would decline from 129.8 miles to 75.8 miles and in special use permit areas from 31.9 to 18.8. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road closures and restrictions would affect some recreationists. Snowmobile access area would drop from 113,548 acres to 63,686 acres. Travel restrictions would also reduce options for weed treatment as well as weed mapping, potentially resulting in weed infestations going unnoticed. There would be a high risk of weed spreading from continued public use on some open, motorized trails and roads, though this risk would be decreased by road and trail closures. Emergency response to fires would be hampered by the reduction in roaded access. Development and maintenance of the road system would be more involved and costly in the short-term. Obliteration of road and construction of new trail could affect cultural resources, and access allowed on roads remaining open to public use could result in further damage to cultural resources. 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 99-0244D Volume 23, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050065, 570 pages and maps, February 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fire Control KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Helena National Forest KW - Montana 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/912105983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+BELTS+TRAVEL+PLAN%2FMAGPIE-CONFEDERATE+VEGETATION+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+TOWNSEND+AND+HELENA+RANGER+DISTRICTS%2C+HELENA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BROADWATER%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=NORTH+BELTS+TRAVEL+PLAN%2FMAGPIE-CONFEDERATE+VEGETATION+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+TOWNSEND+AND+HELENA+RANGER+DISTRICTS%2C+HELENA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BROADWATER%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Helena, Montana; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH BELTS TRAVEL PLAN/MAGPIE-CONFEDERATE VEGETATION RESTORATION PROJECT, TOWNSEND AND HELENA RANGER DISTRICTS, HELENA NATIONAL FOREST, BROADWATER, LEWIS AND CLARK, AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 5 of 9] T2 - NORTH BELTS TRAVEL PLAN/MAGPIE-CONFEDERATE VEGETATION RESTORATION PROJECT, TOWNSEND AND HELENA RANGER DISTRICTS, HELENA NATIONAL FOREST, BROADWATER, LEWIS AND CLARK, AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 912105978; 11403-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a travel management vegetation treatment, and noxious weed management plans is proposed for the 199,860-acre North Belts Travel Plan/Maggie Confederate Vegetation Restoration Area of the Townsend and Helena ranger districts, Helena National Forest, Broadwater, Lewis and Clark, and Meagher counties, Montana. Issues addressed include those associated with the appropriate level of motorized and non-motorized use Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) vegetation treatment alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 6), would include seasonal restrictions on roads and motorized trails to protect big game security habitat and winter range; designation of routes/areas for seasonal hunting opportunity for disabled and elderly persons, including routes open in the Hiddel Valley area, Cochran Gulch, and between Vermont and Lambing Camp gulches; direct access to suitable parking within 300 feet of a road of trail designated for motorized use in areas where developed parking sites are not available; opening or closing of unclassified routes identified during 2003, including one mile for licensed vehicles, 8.6 miles opened for dual-use vehicles, 7.8 miles of motorized trail opened for year-round or seasonal use, 1.4 miles of non-motorized trail opened year-round, and permanent closure of 24.9 miles of unclassified routes; and road decommissioning via 14 new gates and 12 barriers other than gates, 33.9 miles of erosion control measures and drainage improvements and seeding and slash activities, ripping, seeding, and slashing along 60.1 miles, and recontouring of 13 miles, and conversion of 1.5 miles to non-motorized trail. Cost of plan implementation is estimated at $2.05 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The travel management plan would bring motorized use into balance with other resources while also protecting those resources, particularly elk security and water quality. The extent of roads and trails in designated road less areas would decline from 129.8 miles to 75.8 miles and in special use permit areas from 31.9 to 18.8. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road closures and restrictions would affect some recreationists. Snowmobile access area would drop from 113,548 acres to 63,686 acres. Travel restrictions would also reduce options for weed treatment as well as weed mapping, potentially resulting in weed infestations going unnoticed. There would be a high risk of weed spreading from continued public use on some open, motorized trails and roads, though this risk would be decreased by road and trail closures. Emergency response to fires would be hampered by the reduction in roaded access. Development and maintenance of the road system would be more involved and costly in the short-term. Obliteration of road and construction of new trail could affect cultural resources, and access allowed on roads remaining open to public use could result in further damage to cultural resources. 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 99-0244D Volume 23, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050065, 570 pages and maps, February 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fire Control KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Helena National Forest KW - Montana 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/912105978?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+BELTS+TRAVEL+PLAN%2FMAGPIE-CONFEDERATE+VEGETATION+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+TOWNSEND+AND+HELENA+RANGER+DISTRICTS%2C+HELENA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BROADWATER%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=NORTH+BELTS+TRAVEL+PLAN%2FMAGPIE-CONFEDERATE+VEGETATION+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+TOWNSEND+AND+HELENA+RANGER+DISTRICTS%2C+HELENA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BROADWATER%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Helena, Montana; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH BELTS TRAVEL PLAN/MAGPIE-CONFEDERATE VEGETATION RESTORATION PROJECT, TOWNSEND AND HELENA RANGER DISTRICTS, HELENA NATIONAL FOREST, BROADWATER, LEWIS AND CLARK, AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 4 of 9] T2 - NORTH BELTS TRAVEL PLAN/MAGPIE-CONFEDERATE VEGETATION RESTORATION PROJECT, TOWNSEND AND HELENA RANGER DISTRICTS, HELENA NATIONAL FOREST, BROADWATER, LEWIS AND CLARK, AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 912105973; 11403-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a travel management vegetation treatment, and noxious weed management plans is proposed for the 199,860-acre North Belts Travel Plan/Maggie Confederate Vegetation Restoration Area of the Townsend and Helena ranger districts, Helena National Forest, Broadwater, Lewis and Clark, and Meagher counties, Montana. Issues addressed include those associated with the appropriate level of motorized and non-motorized use Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) vegetation treatment alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 6), would include seasonal restrictions on roads and motorized trails to protect big game security habitat and winter range; designation of routes/areas for seasonal hunting opportunity for disabled and elderly persons, including routes open in the Hiddel Valley area, Cochran Gulch, and between Vermont and Lambing Camp gulches; direct access to suitable parking within 300 feet of a road of trail designated for motorized use in areas where developed parking sites are not available; opening or closing of unclassified routes identified during 2003, including one mile for licensed vehicles, 8.6 miles opened for dual-use vehicles, 7.8 miles of motorized trail opened for year-round or seasonal use, 1.4 miles of non-motorized trail opened year-round, and permanent closure of 24.9 miles of unclassified routes; and road decommissioning via 14 new gates and 12 barriers other than gates, 33.9 miles of erosion control measures and drainage improvements and seeding and slash activities, ripping, seeding, and slashing along 60.1 miles, and recontouring of 13 miles, and conversion of 1.5 miles to non-motorized trail. Cost of plan implementation is estimated at $2.05 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The travel management plan would bring motorized use into balance with other resources while also protecting those resources, particularly elk security and water quality. The extent of roads and trails in designated road less areas would decline from 129.8 miles to 75.8 miles and in special use permit areas from 31.9 to 18.8. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road closures and restrictions would affect some recreationists. Snowmobile access area would drop from 113,548 acres to 63,686 acres. Travel restrictions would also reduce options for weed treatment as well as weed mapping, potentially resulting in weed infestations going unnoticed. There would be a high risk of weed spreading from continued public use on some open, motorized trails and roads, though this risk would be decreased by road and trail closures. Emergency response to fires would be hampered by the reduction in roaded access. Development and maintenance of the road system would be more involved and costly in the short-term. Obliteration of road and construction of new trail could affect cultural resources, and access allowed on roads remaining open to public use could result in further damage to cultural resources. 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 99-0244D Volume 23, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050065, 570 pages and maps, February 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fire Control KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Helena National Forest KW - Montana 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/912105973?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+BELTS+TRAVEL+PLAN%2FMAGPIE-CONFEDERATE+VEGETATION+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+TOWNSEND+AND+HELENA+RANGER+DISTRICTS%2C+HELENA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BROADWATER%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=NORTH+BELTS+TRAVEL+PLAN%2FMAGPIE-CONFEDERATE+VEGETATION+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+TOWNSEND+AND+HELENA+RANGER+DISTRICTS%2C+HELENA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BROADWATER%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Helena, Montana; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH BELTS TRAVEL PLAN/MAGPIE-CONFEDERATE VEGETATION RESTORATION PROJECT, TOWNSEND AND HELENA RANGER DISTRICTS, HELENA NATIONAL FOREST, BROADWATER, LEWIS AND CLARK, AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 3 of 9] T2 - NORTH BELTS TRAVEL PLAN/MAGPIE-CONFEDERATE VEGETATION RESTORATION PROJECT, TOWNSEND AND HELENA RANGER DISTRICTS, HELENA NATIONAL FOREST, BROADWATER, LEWIS AND CLARK, AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 912105961; 11403-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a travel management vegetation treatment, and noxious weed management plans is proposed for the 199,860-acre North Belts Travel Plan/Maggie Confederate Vegetation Restoration Area of the Townsend and Helena ranger districts, Helena National Forest, Broadwater, Lewis and Clark, and Meagher counties, Montana. Issues addressed include those associated with the appropriate level of motorized and non-motorized use Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) vegetation treatment alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 6), would include seasonal restrictions on roads and motorized trails to protect big game security habitat and winter range; designation of routes/areas for seasonal hunting opportunity for disabled and elderly persons, including routes open in the Hiddel Valley area, Cochran Gulch, and between Vermont and Lambing Camp gulches; direct access to suitable parking within 300 feet of a road of trail designated for motorized use in areas where developed parking sites are not available; opening or closing of unclassified routes identified during 2003, including one mile for licensed vehicles, 8.6 miles opened for dual-use vehicles, 7.8 miles of motorized trail opened for year-round or seasonal use, 1.4 miles of non-motorized trail opened year-round, and permanent closure of 24.9 miles of unclassified routes; and road decommissioning via 14 new gates and 12 barriers other than gates, 33.9 miles of erosion control measures and drainage improvements and seeding and slash activities, ripping, seeding, and slashing along 60.1 miles, and recontouring of 13 miles, and conversion of 1.5 miles to non-motorized trail. Cost of plan implementation is estimated at $2.05 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The travel management plan would bring motorized use into balance with other resources while also protecting those resources, particularly elk security and water quality. The extent of roads and trails in designated road less areas would decline from 129.8 miles to 75.8 miles and in special use permit areas from 31.9 to 18.8. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road closures and restrictions would affect some recreationists. Snowmobile access area would drop from 113,548 acres to 63,686 acres. Travel restrictions would also reduce options for weed treatment as well as weed mapping, potentially resulting in weed infestations going unnoticed. There would be a high risk of weed spreading from continued public use on some open, motorized trails and roads, though this risk would be decreased by road and trail closures. Emergency response to fires would be hampered by the reduction in roaded access. Development and maintenance of the road system would be more involved and costly in the short-term. Obliteration of road and construction of new trail could affect cultural resources, and access allowed on roads remaining open to public use could result in further damage to cultural resources. 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 99-0244D Volume 23, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050065, 570 pages and maps, February 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fire Control KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Helena National Forest KW - Montana 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/912105961?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+BELTS+TRAVEL+PLAN%2FMAGPIE-CONFEDERATE+VEGETATION+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+TOWNSEND+AND+HELENA+RANGER+DISTRICTS%2C+HELENA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BROADWATER%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=NORTH+BELTS+TRAVEL+PLAN%2FMAGPIE-CONFEDERATE+VEGETATION+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+TOWNSEND+AND+HELENA+RANGER+DISTRICTS%2C+HELENA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BROADWATER%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Helena, Montana; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH BELTS TRAVEL PLAN/MAGPIE-CONFEDERATE VEGETATION RESTORATION PROJECT, TOWNSEND AND HELENA RANGER DISTRICTS, HELENA NATIONAL FOREST, BROADWATER, LEWIS AND CLARK, AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 2 of 9] T2 - NORTH BELTS TRAVEL PLAN/MAGPIE-CONFEDERATE VEGETATION RESTORATION PROJECT, TOWNSEND AND HELENA RANGER DISTRICTS, HELENA NATIONAL FOREST, BROADWATER, LEWIS AND CLARK, AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 912105940; 11403-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a travel management vegetation treatment, and noxious weed management plans is proposed for the 199,860-acre North Belts Travel Plan/Maggie Confederate Vegetation Restoration Area of the Townsend and Helena ranger districts, Helena National Forest, Broadwater, Lewis and Clark, and Meagher counties, Montana. Issues addressed include those associated with the appropriate level of motorized and non-motorized use Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) vegetation treatment alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 6), would include seasonal restrictions on roads and motorized trails to protect big game security habitat and winter range; designation of routes/areas for seasonal hunting opportunity for disabled and elderly persons, including routes open in the Hiddel Valley area, Cochran Gulch, and between Vermont and Lambing Camp gulches; direct access to suitable parking within 300 feet of a road of trail designated for motorized use in areas where developed parking sites are not available; opening or closing of unclassified routes identified during 2003, including one mile for licensed vehicles, 8.6 miles opened for dual-use vehicles, 7.8 miles of motorized trail opened for year-round or seasonal use, 1.4 miles of non-motorized trail opened year-round, and permanent closure of 24.9 miles of unclassified routes; and road decommissioning via 14 new gates and 12 barriers other than gates, 33.9 miles of erosion control measures and drainage improvements and seeding and slash activities, ripping, seeding, and slashing along 60.1 miles, and recontouring of 13 miles, and conversion of 1.5 miles to non-motorized trail. Cost of plan implementation is estimated at $2.05 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The travel management plan would bring motorized use into balance with other resources while also protecting those resources, particularly elk security and water quality. The extent of roads and trails in designated road less areas would decline from 129.8 miles to 75.8 miles and in special use permit areas from 31.9 to 18.8. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road closures and restrictions would affect some recreationists. Snowmobile access area would drop from 113,548 acres to 63,686 acres. Travel restrictions would also reduce options for weed treatment as well as weed mapping, potentially resulting in weed infestations going unnoticed. There would be a high risk of weed spreading from continued public use on some open, motorized trails and roads, though this risk would be decreased by road and trail closures. Emergency response to fires would be hampered by the reduction in roaded access. Development and maintenance of the road system would be more involved and costly in the short-term. Obliteration of road and construction of new trail could affect cultural resources, and access allowed on roads remaining open to public use could result in further damage to cultural resources. 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 99-0244D Volume 23, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050065, 570 pages and maps, February 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fire Control KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Helena National Forest KW - Montana 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/912105940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+BELTS+TRAVEL+PLAN%2FMAGPIE-CONFEDERATE+VEGETATION+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+TOWNSEND+AND+HELENA+RANGER+DISTRICTS%2C+HELENA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BROADWATER%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=NORTH+BELTS+TRAVEL+PLAN%2FMAGPIE-CONFEDERATE+VEGETATION+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+TOWNSEND+AND+HELENA+RANGER+DISTRICTS%2C+HELENA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BROADWATER%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Helena, Montana; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH BELTS TRAVEL PLAN/MAGPIE-CONFEDERATE VEGETATION RESTORATION PROJECT, TOWNSEND AND HELENA RANGER DISTRICTS, HELENA NATIONAL FOREST, BROADWATER, LEWIS AND CLARK, AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 9] T2 - NORTH BELTS TRAVEL PLAN/MAGPIE-CONFEDERATE VEGETATION RESTORATION PROJECT, TOWNSEND AND HELENA RANGER DISTRICTS, HELENA NATIONAL FOREST, BROADWATER, LEWIS AND CLARK, AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 912105930; 11403-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a travel management vegetation treatment, and noxious weed management plans is proposed for the 199,860-acre North Belts Travel Plan/Maggie Confederate Vegetation Restoration Area of the Townsend and Helena ranger districts, Helena National Forest, Broadwater, Lewis and Clark, and Meagher counties, Montana. Issues addressed include those associated with the appropriate level of motorized and non-motorized use Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) vegetation treatment alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 6), would include seasonal restrictions on roads and motorized trails to protect big game security habitat and winter range; designation of routes/areas for seasonal hunting opportunity for disabled and elderly persons, including routes open in the Hiddel Valley area, Cochran Gulch, and between Vermont and Lambing Camp gulches; direct access to suitable parking within 300 feet of a road of trail designated for motorized use in areas where developed parking sites are not available; opening or closing of unclassified routes identified during 2003, including one mile for licensed vehicles, 8.6 miles opened for dual-use vehicles, 7.8 miles of motorized trail opened for year-round or seasonal use, 1.4 miles of non-motorized trail opened year-round, and permanent closure of 24.9 miles of unclassified routes; and road decommissioning via 14 new gates and 12 barriers other than gates, 33.9 miles of erosion control measures and drainage improvements and seeding and slash activities, ripping, seeding, and slashing along 60.1 miles, and recontouring of 13 miles, and conversion of 1.5 miles to non-motorized trail. Cost of plan implementation is estimated at $2.05 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The travel management plan would bring motorized use into balance with other resources while also protecting those resources, particularly elk security and water quality. The extent of roads and trails in designated road less areas would decline from 129.8 miles to 75.8 miles and in special use permit areas from 31.9 to 18.8. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road closures and restrictions would affect some recreationists. Snowmobile access area would drop from 113,548 acres to 63,686 acres. Travel restrictions would also reduce options for weed treatment as well as weed mapping, potentially resulting in weed infestations going unnoticed. There would be a high risk of weed spreading from continued public use on some open, motorized trails and roads, though this risk would be decreased by road and trail closures. Emergency response to fires would be hampered by the reduction in roaded access. Development and maintenance of the road system would be more involved and costly in the short-term. Obliteration of road and construction of new trail could affect cultural resources, and access allowed on roads remaining open to public use could result in further damage to cultural resources. 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 99-0244D Volume 23, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050065, 570 pages and maps, February 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fire Control KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Helena National Forest KW - Montana 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/912105930?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+BELTS+TRAVEL+PLAN%2FMAGPIE-CONFEDERATE+VEGETATION+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+TOWNSEND+AND+HELENA+RANGER+DISTRICTS%2C+HELENA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BROADWATER%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=NORTH+BELTS+TRAVEL+PLAN%2FMAGPIE-CONFEDERATE+VEGETATION+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+TOWNSEND+AND+HELENA+RANGER+DISTRICTS%2C+HELENA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BROADWATER%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Helena, Montana; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH BELTS TRAVEL PLAN/MAGPIE-CONFEDERATE VEGETATION RESTORATION PROJECT, TOWNSEND AND HELENA RANGER DISTRICTS, HELENA NATIONAL FOREST, BROADWATER, LEWIS AND CLARK, AND MEAGHER COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 36413819; 11403 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a travel management vegetation treatment, and noxious weed management plans is proposed for the 199,860-acre North Belts Travel Plan/Maggie Confederate Vegetation Restoration Area of the Townsend and Helena ranger districts, Helena National Forest, Broadwater, Lewis and Clark, and Meagher counties, Montana. Issues addressed include those associated with the appropriate level of motorized and non-motorized use Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) vegetation treatment alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 6), would include seasonal restrictions on roads and motorized trails to protect big game security habitat and winter range; designation of routes/areas for seasonal hunting opportunity for disabled and elderly persons, including routes open in the Hiddel Valley area, Cochran Gulch, and between Vermont and Lambing Camp gulches; direct access to suitable parking within 300 feet of a road of trail designated for motorized use in areas where developed parking sites are not available; opening or closing of unclassified routes identified during 2003, including one mile for licensed vehicles, 8.6 miles opened for dual-use vehicles, 7.8 miles of motorized trail opened for year-round or seasonal use, 1.4 miles of non-motorized trail opened year-round, and permanent closure of 24.9 miles of unclassified routes; and road decommissioning via 14 new gates and 12 barriers other than gates, 33.9 miles of erosion control measures and drainage improvements and seeding and slash activities, ripping, seeding, and slashing along 60.1 miles, and recontouring of 13 miles, and conversion of 1.5 miles to non-motorized trail. Cost of plan implementation is estimated at $2.05 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The travel management plan would bring motorized use into balance with other resources while also protecting those resources, particularly elk security and water quality. The extent of roads and trails in designated road less areas would decline from 129.8 miles to 75.8 miles and in special use permit areas from 31.9 to 18.8. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road closures and restrictions would affect some recreationists. Snowmobile access area would drop from 113,548 acres to 63,686 acres. Travel restrictions would also reduce options for weed treatment as well as weed mapping, potentially resulting in weed infestations going unnoticed. There would be a high risk of weed spreading from continued public use on some open, motorized trails and roads, though this risk would be decreased by road and trail closures. Emergency response to fires would be hampered by the reduction in roaded access. Development and maintenance of the road system would be more involved and costly in the short-term. Obliteration of road and construction of new trail could affect cultural resources, and access allowed on roads remaining open to public use could result in further damage to cultural resources. 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 99-0244D Volume 23, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050065, 570 pages and maps, February 14, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fire Control KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Helena National Forest KW - Montana 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/36413819?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+BELTS+TRAVEL+PLAN%2FMAGPIE-CONFEDERATE+VEGETATION+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+TOWNSEND+AND+HELENA+RANGER+DISTRICTS%2C+HELENA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BROADWATER%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=NORTH+BELTS+TRAVEL+PLAN%2FMAGPIE-CONFEDERATE+VEGETATION+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+TOWNSEND+AND+HELENA+RANGER+DISTRICTS%2C+HELENA+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BROADWATER%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+AND+MEAGHER+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Helena, Montana; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONTICELLO & BLANDING MUNICIPAL WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, MOAB/MONTICHELLO RANGER DISTRICT, MANTI LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST, BLANDING AND SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - MONTICELLO & BLANDING MUNICIPAL WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, MOAB/MONTICHELLO RANGER DISTRICT, MANTI LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST, BLANDING AND SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36389765; 11565-050238_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a watershed improvement project in the Monticello and Blanding municipal watershed of the Moab/Monticello Ranger District, Manti-La Sal National Forest, San Juan County, Utah is proposed. The project area encompasses 20,400 acres and includes portions of the drainage areas of North Creek, Indian Creek, Spring Creek, Bankhead Creek, Pole Creek, and Johnson Creek. Approximately 12,000 acres of these watershed areas are managed as municipal water supply or watershed or watershed protection and improvement under the forest management plan. The project area is the primary source of water for the communities of Monticello and Blanding and surrounding areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to habitat for deer and elk, the transportation system, the visual landscape, recreation resources, and the municipal watershed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in the final EIS of February 2005. The proposed action (Alternative B) would emphasize the reduction of the risk of the development of epidemic spruce beetle populations within the project area and provide for intensive management for the regeneration of aspen stands. The plan would authorize reconstruction of the city of Monticello's water collection and conveyance system; eliminate, abandon, or replace existing buried pipeline; upgrade or replace all of the existing water collection boxes and spring developments; construct or reconstruct a 12-foot-wide temporary road/trail within a 20- to 30-foot-wide corridor along the length of the pipeline to provide for temporary construction activities; improve North Creek Road (Forest Road 50079); reconstruct 0.25 mile or Forest Road 50354; construct temporary roads to facilitate log removal; decommission all temporary roads and other roads not necessary for long-term transportation purposes; classify 0.1 mile of classified trail that provides access to the north end of the Blanding Water Tunnel in Indian Creek; classify 0.3 mile of existing unclassified road that accesses the Blanding Water Tunnel from the north; treat approximately 808 acres of spruce/subalpine fir, 926 acres of aspen/spruce-fir, and 75 acres of aspen; use improvement cuts (conifer removal) and prescribed fire in mixed conifer/aspen stand areas to reduce competition from conifer species and enhance root sprouting (aspen); maintain the appearance of the Horsehead feature while promoting recruitment and release of young seedlings in the understory; continue spruce beetle trapping, pheromone baiting, and disposal of trap and infested trees; implement post-harvest activities, including activities to treat existing and harvested generated fuels, prepare seedbeds for natural regeneration, plant Engelman spruce seedlings, protect reforestation areas from damage from wildlife and livestock, and thin or weed trees less than eight inches in diameter. Alternative C would respond to wildlife concerns by modifying vegetation treatments. The record of decision, published in June 2005 and covered here, includes the final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for cooperation with local government agencies to permit more efficient collection and removal of water to the Monticello and Blanding municipal water systems for public uses; correction of existing sources of water loss and water quality degradation; improve the transportation system in the area; and move toward restoration of the ecological structure, function, processes, and composition of the spruce and aspen components of the project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Timber harvest, road construction, and prescribed burning would result in destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for deer and elk, and the disturbance of soils, resulting in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface waters in the short-term. Sedimentation would affect the quality of the municipal water supply. Visual quality and other recreational values would decline in the short-term as well. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0362D, Volume 27, Number 3 and 05-0380F, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050238, Record of Decision--23 pages and maps, 296 pages and maps, February 11, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Creeks KW - Fire Prevention KW - Forests KW - Insects KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Manti La Sal National Forest KW - Utah KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389765?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTICELLO+%26+BLANDING+MUNICIPAL+WATERSHED+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECTS%2C+MOAB%2FMONTICHELLO+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MANTI+LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BLANDING+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MONTICELLO+%26+BLANDING+MUNICIPAL+WATERSHED+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECTS%2C+MOAB%2FMONTICHELLO+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MANTI+LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BLANDING+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Monticello, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 11, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONTICELLO & BLANDING MUNICIPAL WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, MOAB/MONTICHELLO RANGER DISTRICT, MANTI LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST, BLANDING AND SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - MONTICELLO & BLANDING MUNICIPAL WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, MOAB/MONTICHELLO RANGER DISTRICT, MANTI LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST, BLANDING AND SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36386298; 11565-050238_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a watershed improvement project in the Monticello and Blanding municipal watershed of the Moab/Monticello Ranger District, Manti-La Sal National Forest, San Juan County, Utah is proposed. The project area encompasses 20,400 acres and includes portions of the drainage areas of North Creek, Indian Creek, Spring Creek, Bankhead Creek, Pole Creek, and Johnson Creek. Approximately 12,000 acres of these watershed areas are managed as municipal water supply or watershed or watershed protection and improvement under the forest management plan. The project area is the primary source of water for the communities of Monticello and Blanding and surrounding areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to habitat for deer and elk, the transportation system, the visual landscape, recreation resources, and the municipal watershed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in the final EIS of February 2005. The proposed action (Alternative B) would emphasize the reduction of the risk of the development of epidemic spruce beetle populations within the project area and provide for intensive management for the regeneration of aspen stands. The plan would authorize reconstruction of the city of Monticello's water collection and conveyance system; eliminate, abandon, or replace existing buried pipeline; upgrade or replace all of the existing water collection boxes and spring developments; construct or reconstruct a 12-foot-wide temporary road/trail within a 20- to 30-foot-wide corridor along the length of the pipeline to provide for temporary construction activities; improve North Creek Road (Forest Road 50079); reconstruct 0.25 mile or Forest Road 50354; construct temporary roads to facilitate log removal; decommission all temporary roads and other roads not necessary for long-term transportation purposes; classify 0.1 mile of classified trail that provides access to the north end of the Blanding Water Tunnel in Indian Creek; classify 0.3 mile of existing unclassified road that accesses the Blanding Water Tunnel from the north; treat approximately 808 acres of spruce/subalpine fir, 926 acres of aspen/spruce-fir, and 75 acres of aspen; use improvement cuts (conifer removal) and prescribed fire in mixed conifer/aspen stand areas to reduce competition from conifer species and enhance root sprouting (aspen); maintain the appearance of the Horsehead feature while promoting recruitment and release of young seedlings in the understory; continue spruce beetle trapping, pheromone baiting, and disposal of trap and infested trees; implement post-harvest activities, including activities to treat existing and harvested generated fuels, prepare seedbeds for natural regeneration, plant Engelman spruce seedlings, protect reforestation areas from damage from wildlife and livestock, and thin or weed trees less than eight inches in diameter. Alternative C would respond to wildlife concerns by modifying vegetation treatments. The record of decision, published in June 2005 and covered here, includes the final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for cooperation with local government agencies to permit more efficient collection and removal of water to the Monticello and Blanding municipal water systems for public uses; correction of existing sources of water loss and water quality degradation; improve the transportation system in the area; and move toward restoration of the ecological structure, function, processes, and composition of the spruce and aspen components of the project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Timber harvest, road construction, and prescribed burning would result in destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for deer and elk, and the disturbance of soils, resulting in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface waters in the short-term. Sedimentation would affect the quality of the municipal water supply. Visual quality and other recreational values would decline in the short-term as well. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0362D, Volume 27, Number 3 and 05-0380F, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050238, Record of Decision--23 pages and maps, 296 pages and maps, February 11, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Creeks KW - Fire Prevention KW - Forests KW - Insects KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Manti La Sal National Forest KW - Utah KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36386298?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTICELLO+%26+BLANDING+MUNICIPAL+WATERSHED+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECTS%2C+MOAB%2FMONTICHELLO+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MANTI+LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BLANDING+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MONTICELLO+%26+BLANDING+MUNICIPAL+WATERSHED+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECTS%2C+MOAB%2FMONTICHELLO+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MANTI+LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BLANDING+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Monticello, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 11, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONTICELLO & BLANDING MUNICIPAL WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, MOAB/MONTICHELLO RANGER DISTRICT, MANTI LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST, BLANDING AND SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MONTICELLO & BLANDING MUNICIPAL WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, MOAB/MONTICHELLO RANGER DISTRICT, MANTI LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST, BLANDING AND SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36370141; 050380F-050063_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a watershed improvement project in the Monticello and Blanding municipal watershed of the Moab/Monticello Ranger District, Manti-La Sal National Forest, San Juan County, Utah is proposed. The project area encompasses 20,400 acres and includes portions of the drainage areas of North Creek, Indian Creek, Spring Creek, Bankhead Creek, Pole Creek, and Johnson Creek. Approximately 12,000 acres of these watershed areas are managed as municipal water supply or watershed or watershed protection and improvement under the forest management plan. The project area is the primary source of water for the communities of Monticello and Blanding and surrounding areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to habitat for deer and elk, the transportation system, the visual landscape, recreation resources, and the municipal watershed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B) would emphasize the reduction of the risk of the development of epidemic spruce beetle populations within the project area and provide for intensive management for the regeneration of aspen stands. The plan would authorize reconstruction of the city of Monticello's water collection and conveyance system; eliminate, abandon, or replace existing buried pipeline; upgrade or replace all of the existing water collection boxes and spring developments; construct or reconstruct a 12-foot-wide temporary road/trail within a 20- to 30-foot-wide corridor along the length of the pipeline to provide for temporary construction activities; improve North Creek Road (Forest Road 50079); reconstruct 0.25 mile or Forest Road 50354; construct temporary roads to facilitate log removal; decommission all temporary roads and other roads not necessary for long-term transportation purposes; classify 0.1 mile of classified trail that provides access to the north end of the Blanding Water Tunnel in Indian Creek; classify 0.3 mile of existing unclassified road that accesses the Blanding Water Tunnel from the north; treat approximately 808 acres of spruce/sub-alpine fir, 926 acres of aspen/spruce-fir, and 75 acres of aspen; use improvement cuts (conifer removal) and prescribed fire in mixed conifer/aspen stand areas to reduce competition from conifer species and enhance root sprouting (aspen); maintain the appearance of the Horsehead feature while promoting recruitment and release of young seedlings in the under story; continue spruce beetle trapping, pheromone baiting, and disposal of trap and infested trees; implement post-harvest activities, including activities to treat existing and harvested generated fuels, prepare seedbeds for natural regeneration, plant Engelman spruce seedlings, protect reforestation areas from damage from wildlife and livestock, and thin or weed trees less than eight inches in diameter. Alternative C would respond to wildlife concerns by modifying vegetation treatments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for cooperation with local government agencies to permit more efficient collection and removal of water to the Monticello and Blanding municipal water systems for public uses; correction of existing sources of water loss and water quality degradation; improve the transportation system in the area; and move toward restoration of the ecological structure, function, processes, and composition of the spruce and aspen components of the project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Timber harvest, road construction, and prescribed burning would result in destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for deer and elk, and the disturbance of soils, resulting in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface waters in the short-term. Sedimentation would affect the quality of the municipal water supply. Visual quality and other recreational values would decline in the short-term as well. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0362D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050063, 296 pages and maps, February 11, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Research and Development KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Creeks KW - Fire Prevention KW - Forests KW - Insects KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Manti La Sal National Forest KW - Utah KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370141?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTICELLO+%26+BLANDING+MUNICIPAL+WATERSHED+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECTS%2C+MOAB%2FMONTICHELLO+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MANTI+LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BLANDING+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MONTICELLO+%26+BLANDING+MUNICIPAL+WATERSHED+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECTS%2C+MOAB%2FMONTICHELLO+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MANTI+LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BLANDING+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Monticello, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 11, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONTICELLO & BLANDING MUNICIPAL WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, MOAB/MONTICHELLO RANGER DISTRICT, MANTI LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST, BLANDING AND SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 16356197; 11401 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a watershed improvement project in the Monticello and Blanding municipal watershed of the Moab/Monticello Ranger District, Manti-La Sal National Forest, San Juan County, Utah is proposed. The project area encompasses 20,400 acres and includes portions of the drainage areas of North Creek, Indian Creek, Spring Creek, Bankhead Creek, Pole Creek, and Johnson Creek. Approximately 12,000 acres of these watershed areas are managed as municipal water supply or watershed or watershed protection and improvement under the forest management plan. The project area is the primary source of water for the communities of Monticello and Blanding and surrounding areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to habitat for deer and elk, the transportation system, the visual landscape, recreation resources, and the municipal watershed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B) would emphasize the reduction of the risk of the development of epidemic spruce beetle populations within the project area and provide for intensive management for the regeneration of aspen stands. The plan would authorize reconstruction of the city of Monticello's water collection and conveyance system; eliminate, abandon, or replace existing buried pipeline; upgrade or replace all of the existing water collection boxes and spring developments; construct or reconstruct a 12-foot-wide temporary road/trail within a 20- to 30-foot-wide corridor along the length of the pipeline to provide for temporary construction activities; improve North Creek Road (Forest Road 50079); reconstruct 0.25 mile or Forest Road 50354; construct temporary roads to facilitate log removal; decommission all temporary roads and other roads not necessary for long-term transportation purposes; classify 0.1 mile of classified trail that provides access to the north end of the Blanding Water Tunnel in Indian Creek; classify 0.3 mile of existing unclassified road that accesses the Blanding Water Tunnel from the north; treat approximately 808 acres of spruce/sub-alpine fir, 926 acres of aspen/spruce-fir, and 75 acres of aspen; use improvement cuts (conifer removal) and prescribed fire in mixed conifer/aspen stand areas to reduce competition from conifer species and enhance root sprouting (aspen); maintain the appearance of the Horsehead feature while promoting recruitment and release of young seedlings in the under story; continue spruce beetle trapping, pheromone baiting, and disposal of trap and infested trees; implement post-harvest activities, including activities to treat existing and harvested generated fuels, prepare seedbeds for natural regeneration, plant Engelman spruce seedlings, protect reforestation areas from damage from wildlife and livestock, and thin or weed trees less than eight inches in diameter. Alternative C would respond to wildlife concerns by modifying vegetation treatments. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for cooperation with local government agencies to permit more efficient collection and removal of water to the Monticello and Blanding municipal water systems for public uses; correction of existing sources of water loss and water quality degradation; improve the transportation system in the area; and move toward restoration of the ecological structure, function, processes, and composition of the spruce and aspen components of the project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Timber harvest, road construction, and prescribed burning would result in destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for deer and elk, and the disturbance of soils, resulting in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface waters in the short-term. Sedimentation would affect the quality of the municipal water supply. Visual quality and other recreational values would decline in the short-term as well. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0362D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050063, 296 pages and maps, February 11, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Research and Development KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Creeks KW - Fire Prevention KW - Forests KW - Insects KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Manti La Sal National Forest KW - Utah KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16356197?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTICELLO+%26+BLANDING+MUNICIPAL+WATERSHED+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECTS%2C+MOAB%2FMONTICHELLO+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MANTI+LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BLANDING+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MONTICELLO+%26+BLANDING+MUNICIPAL+WATERSHED+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECTS%2C+MOAB%2FMONTICHELLO+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+MANTI+LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+BLANDING+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Monticello, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 11, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANASSAS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK BYPASS STUDY, PRINCE WILLIAM AND FAIRFAX COUNTIES, VIRGINIA. AN - 36423333; 11397 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a bypass of the Manassas National Battlefield Park in Prince William and Fairfax counties, Virginia is proposed. The park was established in 1940 to preserve the scene of two major Civil War battles, the first major engagement of the war and a larger battle resulting in greater casualties. The park is one of 31 Civil War cites in the National park System and is visited by 800,000 persons every year. Currently, the park experiences daily congestion within the center of area on both routes, as well as heavy volumes of cut-through commuter traffic traversing some of the most sensitive historic resources in the park. The conflict between park-related activities and non-park cut-through traffic on US 29 and VA 234 has resulted in several problems, including disturbance to historic resources, park interpretation conflicts, and serious threats to public safety. The bypass would extend from US 29 east of the park boundary and Virginia Route 234 (VA 234) south of the boundary to US 29 west of the boundary and VA 234 north of the boundary. US 29 and VA 234 within the park would be closed to traffic. Five build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would cross the park boundary and below the Field of Dreams and upgrade a portion of existing VA 234 northwest of the park. The 8.6-mile alignment would be co-located on the VA 234 Bypass North Extension. Estimated costs of rights-of-way and construction are %15.4 million and $306.8 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The availability of the bypass would remove through traffic from within the boundaries of the national park, enhancing historic preservation efforts and visitor experience and easing travel for through commuter and general purpose traffic. Better access to sites within the park would be provided, and road closures would add 76.2 acres to the park. The preferred alternative would be located partially within park boundaries in the northeast corner, minimizing impacts to residential areas such as Fairfax National Estates, Bull Run Overlook, and Sudley Mountain Estates. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, totaling 190.6 acres, would result in the displacement of 13 homes, one business, and 57.1 acres of farmland. The facility would also displace seven acres of wetlands within the limited of disturbance boundaries, 5.3 acres of National Park Service wetlands, 2,606 linear feet of stream, and 30.8 acres of floodplain. Three public parks would be affected, and 20.5 acres of Fairfax County Park Authority land and 20.6 acres of parkland would be displaced, and 54 acres within an historic district would be altered. One major stream crossing would be necessary. Five archaeological sites, four historic sites, two historical rural historical landscapes, and 17 architecturally significant structures would be marred or lost. Several significant sites pertinent to the Civil War would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 29 noise sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter five potential hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050059, 312 pages and maps, February 10, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Manassas Battlefield Park KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 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/36423333?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANASSAS+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+PARK+BYPASS+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+WILLIAM+AND+FAIRFAX+COUNTIES%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=MANASSAS+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+PARK+BYPASS+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+WILLIAM+AND+FAIRFAX+COUNTIES%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE-SISKIYOU NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CASCADE-SISKIYOU NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36371179; 050353F-050048_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the 52,947-acre Cascade-Siskyou National Monument in southeastern Jackson County, Oregon is proposed. The planning area encompasses 52,947 acres. The monument was established on June 9, 2000 to protect an array of biological, geological, hydrological, archaeological, and historical resources. Key issues identified during the EIS process include those associated with forest and non-forest vegetation, transportation system needs, riparian and wetland areas, recreation, and livestock grazing. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative combines aspects of all alternatives, but is largely based on Alternative C, though fewer acres would be managed than under that alternative and management in the 27,610-acre Diversity Emphasis Area would primarily be limited to pilot studies. Emphasis would be placed on management of the old-growth area, focusing on the wild land-urban interface, habitat connectivity area, and young stands; management of the Diversity Emphasis Area, focusing on weed treatments, improvement of riparian and wetland plant communities, wild land-urban interface treatments, and pilot studies of grasslands, shrublands, and woodlands; management of riparian areas and aquatic resources, focusing on am aquatic conservation strategy, partnerships with stakeholders, restoration and enhancement activities, functioning condition surveys, a water quality restoration plan, ongoing floodplain restoration, thinning of small diameter trees, and use of prescribed fire; livestock grazing management, focusing on a framework for making future decisions regarding livestock grazing; transportation and access management; and recreation and visitor services, focusing on several modes of non-motorized recreational access as well as motorized access, and addressing the need for a variety of recreational facilities. The preferred alternative would incorporate active management for the protection and maintenance of the conifer communities while limiting some ground-disturbing management tools that could be used in maintaining and restoring other plant communities. Recreation and other visitor uses would be accommodated at levels that would not interfere with protection, maintenance, and/or restoration of monument objects and resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would protect the monument's unique resources, while allowing for sustained use of its economically and culturally valuable resources. Fuel reduction measures, including prescribed fire, would reduce the risk of wildfire within the monument. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road closures and restrictions on off-highway vehicles would affect recreational access to certain areas within the monument. Mechanical vegetation management would result in moderate disturbance of native plant communities. Management activities would also result in soil disturbance and sedimentation of receiving waters in the short-term. Fuel reduction measures could affect canopy cover in some areas in the short-term. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (61 U.S.C. 431 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0378D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050048, Reader's Guide-23 pages, Final EIS--396 pages, Map Supplement, February 3, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-04/036+1792 KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Forests KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lakes KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Plant Control KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument KW - Oregon KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371179?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE-SISKIYOU+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE-SISKIYOU+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Medford, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE-SISKIYOU NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 16346458; 11387 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the 52,947-acre Cascade-Siskyou National Monument in southeastern Jackson County, Oregon is proposed. The planning area encompasses 52,947 acres. The monument was established on June 9, 2000 to protect an array of biological, geological, hydrological, archaeological, and historical resources. Key issues identified during the EIS process include those associated with forest and non-forest vegetation, transportation system needs, riparian and wetland areas, recreation, and livestock grazing. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative combines aspects of all alternatives, but is largely based on Alternative C, though fewer acres would be managed than under that alternative and management in the 27,610-acre Diversity Emphasis Area would primarily be limited to pilot studies. Emphasis would be placed on management of the old-growth area, focusing on the wild land-urban interface, habitat connectivity area, and young stands; management of the Diversity Emphasis Area, focusing on weed treatments, improvement of riparian and wetland plant communities, wild land-urban interface treatments, and pilot studies of grasslands, shrublands, and woodlands; management of riparian areas and aquatic resources, focusing on am aquatic conservation strategy, partnerships with stakeholders, restoration and enhancement activities, functioning condition surveys, a water quality restoration plan, ongoing floodplain restoration, thinning of small diameter trees, and use of prescribed fire; livestock grazing management, focusing on a framework for making future decisions regarding livestock grazing; transportation and access management; and recreation and visitor services, focusing on several modes of non-motorized recreational access as well as motorized access, and addressing the need for a variety of recreational facilities. The preferred alternative would incorporate active management for the protection and maintenance of the conifer communities while limiting some ground-disturbing management tools that could be used in maintaining and restoring other plant communities. Recreation and other visitor uses would be accommodated at levels that would not interfere with protection, maintenance, and/or restoration of monument objects and resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would protect the monument's unique resources, while allowing for sustained use of its economically and culturally valuable resources. Fuel reduction measures, including prescribed fire, would reduce the risk of wildfire within the monument. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road closures and restrictions on off-highway vehicles would affect recreational access to certain areas within the monument. Mechanical vegetation management would result in moderate disturbance of native plant communities. Management activities would also result in soil disturbance and sedimentation of receiving waters in the short-term. Fuel reduction measures could affect canopy cover in some areas in the short-term. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (61 U.S.C. 431 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0378D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050048, Reader's Guide-23 pages, Final EIS--396 pages, Map Supplement, February 3, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-04/036+1792 KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Forests KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lakes KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Plant Control KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument KW - Oregon KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16346458?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE-SISKIYOU+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE-SISKIYOU+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Medford, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STOCKRIDGE-MUNSEE CASINO, TOWN OF TOMPSON, SULLIVAN COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36440876; 11386 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a casino in Thompson, Sullivan County, New York is proposed by the Stockbridge-Munsee Community, band of the Mohican Indians of Wisconsin. The proposed Munsee Casino Project would constitute a destination facility with a Class III gaming complex as well as such ancillary facilities as a hotel, food and beverage outlets, retail facilities, and a service station. The proposed 333-acre site lies immediately adjacent to State Route 17, a major transportation corridor, and regionally is within 100 miles of few York City. For the project to be implemented, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs must first take lands into trust for the tribe. The tribe, which largely resides on its Wisconsin Reservation, which provides residences for 800 of the tribe's 1,600 members. The reservation is the site of the Mohican North star Casino and Bingo complex, which features 1,045 slot machines and 18 Black Jack tables. The tribe continues to maintain strong ties with the state of New York, particularly in relation to cultural and historical sites and reparation issues. In 1986, the tribe filed an ejectment claim with respect to 23,000 acres in Madison and Oneida counties in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York against the state and other interested parties; the tribe had occupied these lands prior to migrating to Wisconsin. Under the proposal, the first phase would involve development of a 584,000-square-foot casino and ancillary facilities. The casino space would provide for 3,000 slot machines and 190 gaming tables as well as a wide range of other entertainment facilities, such as specialty bars and restaurants, retail shops, child care areas, a 30,000-square-foot multi-purpose area, and employee accommodations. Warehousing and other storage space would be provided in a separate building. A service station and convenience store would be located at the entrance. A water tower would be located at a high point near the entrance, and a 40,0000 square-foot central plant would be located next to the casino. During the first phase, 8,480 parking spaces would be provided in two surface lots and structured parking facilities. The project would include roadway improvements and water supply and waste treatment facilities. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. The second phase would consist of the construction of a 750-room hotel and a parking garage. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino operation would be of a size that maximizes revenues, constitutes competition for other existing and proposed establishments, and creates a draw for potential patrons. Gaming would provide a dependable revenue stream, maximize net revenues, and thereby protects tribal members financial and allows the tribe to fulfill its responsibilities under its governmental and social programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The development site would extend into the 100-year floodplain and result in the displacement of upland forest habitat. Phase I would impact 1.48 acres of vegetated wetlands, 0.07 acre within a pond, and 0.37 acre within two drainage basins as well as 705 intermittent streams. The resort complex would all 2,264 peak-hour vehicular trips to the area roadway system at full build out. The project population would create additional demand for community services and consume 430,000 gallons of water for domestic uses per day. The average daily wastewater outflow would amount to 327,000 gallons, which could easily be accommodated by the Thompson Kaimesha wastewater treatment facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050047, 476 pages and maps, February 2, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Research and Development KW - Air Quality KW - Commercial Zones KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hotels KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36440876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STOCKRIDGE-MUNSEE+CASINO%2C+TOWN+OF+TOMPSON%2C+SULLIVAN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=STOCKRIDGE-MUNSEE+CASINO%2C+TOWN+OF+TOMPSON%2C+SULLIVAN+COUNTY%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STOCKRIDGE-MUNSEE CASINO, TOWN OF TOMPSON, SULLIVAN COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - STOCKRIDGE-MUNSEE CASINO, TOWN OF TOMPSON, SULLIVAN COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36371131; 050376D-050047_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a casino in Thompson, Sullivan County, New York is proposed by the Stockbridge-Munsee Community, band of the Mohican Indians of Wisconsin. The proposed Munsee Casino Project would constitute a destination facility with a Class III gaming complex as well as such ancillary facilities as a hotel, food and beverage outlets, retail facilities, and a service station. The proposed 333-acre site lies immediately adjacent to State Route 17, a major transportation corridor, and regionally is within 100 miles of few York City. For the project to be implemented, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs must first take lands into trust for the tribe. The tribe, which largely resides on its Wisconsin Reservation, which provides residences for 800 of the tribe's 1,600 members. The reservation is the site of the Mohican North star Casino and Bingo complex, which features 1,045 slot machines and 18 Black Jack tables. The tribe continues to maintain strong ties with the state of New York, particularly in relation to cultural and historical sites and reparation issues. In 1986, the tribe filed an ejectment claim with respect to 23,000 acres in Madison and Oneida counties in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York against the state and other interested parties; the tribe had occupied these lands prior to migrating to Wisconsin. Under the proposal, the first phase would involve development of a 584,000-square-foot casino and ancillary facilities. The casino space would provide for 3,000 slot machines and 190 gaming tables as well as a wide range of other entertainment facilities, such as specialty bars and restaurants, retail shops, child care areas, a 30,000-square-foot multi-purpose area, and employee accommodations. Warehousing and other storage space would be provided in a separate building. A service station and convenience store would be located at the entrance. A water tower would be located at a high point near the entrance, and a 40,0000 square-foot central plant would be located next to the casino. During the first phase, 8,480 parking spaces would be provided in two surface lots and structured parking facilities. The project would include roadway improvements and water supply and waste treatment facilities. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. The second phase would consist of the construction of a 750-room hotel and a parking garage. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino operation would be of a size that maximizes revenues, constitutes competition for other existing and proposed establishments, and creates a draw for potential patrons. Gaming would provide a dependable revenue stream, maximize net revenues, and thereby protects tribal members financial and allows the tribe to fulfill its responsibilities under its governmental and social programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The development site would extend into the 100-year floodplain and result in the displacement of upland forest habitat. Phase I would impact 1.48 acres of vegetated wetlands, 0.07 acre within a pond, and 0.37 acre within two drainage basins as well as 705 intermittent streams. The resort complex would all 2,264 peak-hour vehicular trips to the area roadway system at full build out. The project population would create additional demand for community services and consume 430,000 gallons of water for domestic uses per day. The average daily wastewater outflow would amount to 327,000 gallons, which could easily be accommodated by the Thompson Kaimesha wastewater treatment facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050047, 476 pages and maps, February 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Research and Development KW - Air Quality KW - Commercial Zones KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hotels KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371131?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STOCKRIDGE-MUNSEE+CASINO%2C+TOWN+OF+TOMPSON%2C+SULLIVAN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=STOCKRIDGE-MUNSEE+CASINO%2C+TOWN+OF+TOMPSON%2C+SULLIVAN+COUNTY%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STOCKRIDGE-MUNSEE CASINO, TOWN OF TOMPSON, SULLIVAN COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - STOCKRIDGE-MUNSEE CASINO, TOWN OF TOMPSON, SULLIVAN COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36370748; 050376D-050047_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a casino in Thompson, Sullivan County, New York is proposed by the Stockbridge-Munsee Community, band of the Mohican Indians of Wisconsin. The proposed Munsee Casino Project would constitute a destination facility with a Class III gaming complex as well as such ancillary facilities as a hotel, food and beverage outlets, retail facilities, and a service station. The proposed 333-acre site lies immediately adjacent to State Route 17, a major transportation corridor, and regionally is within 100 miles of few York City. For the project to be implemented, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs must first take lands into trust for the tribe. The tribe, which largely resides on its Wisconsin Reservation, which provides residences for 800 of the tribe's 1,600 members. The reservation is the site of the Mohican North star Casino and Bingo complex, which features 1,045 slot machines and 18 Black Jack tables. The tribe continues to maintain strong ties with the state of New York, particularly in relation to cultural and historical sites and reparation issues. In 1986, the tribe filed an ejectment claim with respect to 23,000 acres in Madison and Oneida counties in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York against the state and other interested parties; the tribe had occupied these lands prior to migrating to Wisconsin. Under the proposal, the first phase would involve development of a 584,000-square-foot casino and ancillary facilities. The casino space would provide for 3,000 slot machines and 190 gaming tables as well as a wide range of other entertainment facilities, such as specialty bars and restaurants, retail shops, child care areas, a 30,000-square-foot multi-purpose area, and employee accommodations. Warehousing and other storage space would be provided in a separate building. A service station and convenience store would be located at the entrance. A water tower would be located at a high point near the entrance, and a 40,0000 square-foot central plant would be located next to the casino. During the first phase, 8,480 parking spaces would be provided in two surface lots and structured parking facilities. The project would include roadway improvements and water supply and waste treatment facilities. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. The second phase would consist of the construction of a 750-room hotel and a parking garage. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino operation would be of a size that maximizes revenues, constitutes competition for other existing and proposed establishments, and creates a draw for potential patrons. Gaming would provide a dependable revenue stream, maximize net revenues, and thereby protects tribal members financial and allows the tribe to fulfill its responsibilities under its governmental and social programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The development site would extend into the 100-year floodplain and result in the displacement of upland forest habitat. Phase I would impact 1.48 acres of vegetated wetlands, 0.07 acre within a pond, and 0.37 acre within two drainage basins as well as 705 intermittent streams. The resort complex would all 2,264 peak-hour vehicular trips to the area roadway system at full build out. The project population would create additional demand for community services and consume 430,000 gallons of water for domestic uses per day. The average daily wastewater outflow would amount to 327,000 gallons, which could easily be accommodated by the Thompson Kaimesha wastewater treatment facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050047, 476 pages and maps, February 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Research and Development KW - Air Quality KW - Commercial Zones KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hotels KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New York KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370748?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STOCKRIDGE-MUNSEE+CASINO%2C+TOWN+OF+TOMPSON%2C+SULLIVAN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=STOCKRIDGE-MUNSEE+CASINO%2C+TOWN+OF+TOMPSON%2C+SULLIVAN+COUNTY%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLDEN SUNLIGHT MINE PIT RECLAMATION ALTERNATIVES, JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1998). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - GOLDEN SUNLIGHT MINE PIT RECLAMATION ALTERNATIVES, JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1998). AN - 36369035; 050316D-050046_0001 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, contained corrections and revisions to the draft EIS as well as public comments and agency responses. This draft 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 the state authorities that backfilling the pit could result in unnecessary degradation of public lands ad 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 5o 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 annual tax revenues of $8.1 million and $322,000, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some portions of the pit high wall 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 sloughing. 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 abstracts of the and final draft EISs see 97-0409D, Volume 21, Number 6 and 98-0083F, Volume 22, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050046, 301 pages, February 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-98/010+1990 KW - Acids KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hydrology KW - Mining 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/36369035?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLDEN+SUNLIGHT+MINE+PIT+RECLAMATION+ALTERNATIVES%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1998%29.&rft.title=GOLDEN+SUNLIGHT+MINE+PIT+RECLAMATION+ALTERNATIVES%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28DRAFT+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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36368558; 050306D-050044_0004 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, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action 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. Three alternatives vary well pad density. The preferred alternative would combine several of the alternatives and apply additional mitigation and outcome- or performance-based field management objectives. 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 surface disturbance on 7,804 acres. Minimum well pad disturbance density would amount to 64 well pads per 640-acre section. Bottom hole well density would range from one bottom hole every five acres for one every 40 acres. Approximately 250 wells would be drilled annually. The topography of the affected 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 pronghorn antelope, greater sage grouse, raptors, and up to 17 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.). JF - EPA number: 050044, 531 pages and maps, February 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-05/009+1310 KW - Air Quality KW - Desert Land KW - Drilling KW - Dunes KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Livestock KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys 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/36368558?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-01&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36368290; 050306D-050044_0003 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, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action 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. Three alternatives vary well pad density. The preferred alternative would combine several of the alternatives and apply additional mitigation and outcome- or performance-based field management objectives. 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 surface disturbance on 7,804 acres. Minimum well pad disturbance density would amount to 64 well pads per 640-acre section. Bottom hole well density would range from one bottom hole every five acres for one every 40 acres. Approximately 250 wells would be drilled annually. The topography of the affected 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 pronghorn antelope, greater sage grouse, raptors, and up to 17 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.). JF - EPA number: 050044, 531 pages and maps, February 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-05/009+1310 KW - Air Quality KW - Desert Land KW - Drilling KW - Dunes KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Livestock KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys 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/36368290?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-01&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36368264; 050306D-050044_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, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action 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. Three alternatives vary well pad density. The preferred alternative would combine several of the alternatives and apply additional mitigation and outcome- or performance-based field management objectives. 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 surface disturbance on 7,804 acres. Minimum well pad disturbance density would amount to 64 well pads per 640-acre section. Bottom hole well density would range from one bottom hole every five acres for one every 40 acres. Approximately 250 wells would be drilled annually. The topography of the affected 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 pronghorn antelope, greater sage grouse, raptors, and up to 17 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.). JF - EPA number: 050044, 531 pages and maps, February 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-05/009+1310 KW - Air Quality KW - Desert Land KW - Drilling KW - Dunes KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Livestock KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys 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/36368264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-01&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36367171; 050306D-050044_0002 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, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action 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. Three alternatives vary well pad density. The preferred alternative would combine several of the alternatives and apply additional mitigation and outcome- or performance-based field management objectives. 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 surface disturbance on 7,804 acres. Minimum well pad disturbance density would amount to 64 well pads per 640-acre section. Bottom hole well density would range from one bottom hole every five acres for one every 40 acres. Approximately 250 wells would be drilled annually. The topography of the affected 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 pronghorn antelope, greater sage grouse, raptors, and up to 17 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.). JF - EPA number: 050044, 531 pages and maps, February 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-05/009+1310 KW - Air Quality KW - Desert Land KW - Drilling KW - Dunes KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Livestock KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys 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/36367171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-01&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 16346590; 11383 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, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action 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. Three alternatives vary well pad density. The preferred alternative would combine several of the alternatives and apply additional mitigation and outcome- or performance-based field management objectives. 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 surface disturbance on 7,804 acres. Minimum well pad disturbance density would amount to 64 well pads per 640-acre section. Bottom hole well density would range from one bottom hole every five acres for one every 40 acres. Approximately 250 wells would be drilled annually. The topography of the affected 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 pronghorn antelope, greater sage grouse, raptors, and up to 17 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.). JF - EPA number: 050044, 531 pages and maps, February 1, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-05/009+1310 KW - Air Quality KW - Desert Land KW - Drilling KW - Dunes KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Livestock KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys 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/16346590?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-01&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 - Draft. Preparation date: February 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLDEN SUNLIGHT MINE PIT RECLAMATION ALTERNATIVES, JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1998). AN - 16343190; 11385 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, contained corrections and revisions to the draft EIS as well as public comments and agency responses. This draft 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 the state authorities that backfilling the pit could result in unnecessary degradation of public lands ad 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 5o 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 annual tax revenues of $8.1 million and $322,000, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some portions of the pit high wall 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 sloughing. 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 abstracts of the and final draft EISs see 97-0409D, Volume 21, Number 6 and 98-0083F, Volume 22, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050046, 301 pages, February 1, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-98/010+1990 KW - Acids KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hydrology KW - Mining 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/16343190?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLDEN+SUNLIGHT+MINE+PIT+RECLAMATION+ALTERNATIVES%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1998%29.&rft.title=GOLDEN+SUNLIGHT+MINE+PIT+RECLAMATION+ALTERNATIVES%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28DRAFT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TABLE TOP EXPLORATORY OIL AND GAS WELL, MOUNTAIN VIEW RANGER DISTRICT, WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST, SUMMIT COUNTY, UTAH (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1993). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - TABLE TOP EXPLORATORY OIL AND GAS WELL, MOUNTAIN VIEW RANGER DISTRICT, WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST, SUMMIT COUNTY, UTAH (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1993). AN - 36370099; 040305F-050040_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an exploratory oil well in the Main Fork of the Bear River drainage on the Evanston District of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Summit County, Utah is proposed. In January 1994, the Forest Service approved Chevron's Surface Use Plan of Operations for the project. Subsequently, Double Eagle Petroleum and Mining assumed control of this project and in September of 1995 initiated construction of the road providing access to the drill site. Construction was halted in November 1995 due to frozen conditions. Due to non-leased lands adjacent to the proposed site, Double Eagle requested a lease suspension which the Bureau of Land Management granted. The project was delayed until a leasing decision was made as part of the 2003 forest plan revision. In 2003, Double Eagle acquired the oil and gas leases on those adjacent lands. Rima Exploration, in partnership with Double Eagle, is not interested in completing this project. Completing the project would involve finishing 2.8 miles of partially constructed access road, construction of a 33.5-acre drill pad, and drilling the exploration well. If the well becomes productive, it would be completed for production. If it turned out to be a dry hole, the drill site and portions of the access road would be reclaimed. This abbreviated final supplemental EIS, considers two well site alternatives, as well as alternatives regarding road management, water sources, gravel sources, and a No Action Alternative; only additions and errata are provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Access to and development of the site would provide the potential for exploitation of valuable hydrocarbon resources in line with the multiple-use directives outlined in the most recent revision of the forest plan. Oil produced at the well would help provide for regional needs and reduce the nations dependence on foreign sources of energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road construction and well site development would displace vegetation and disturb soils during the development and protection stages of the project, and well facilities would mar visual aesthetics in the vicinity. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050040, 131 pages, January 28, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Drilling KW - Forests KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Leasing KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wells KW - Utah KW - Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370099?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TABLE+TOP+EXPLORATORY+OIL+AND+GAS+WELL%2C+MOUNTAIN+VIEW+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+WASATCH-CACHE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUMMIT+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1993%29.&rft.title=TABLE+TOP+EXPLORATORY+OIL+AND+GAS+WELL%2C+MOUNTAIN+VIEW+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+WASATCH-CACHE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUMMIT+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1993%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Mountain View, Wyoming; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 28, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TABLE TOP EXPLORATORY OIL AND GAS WELL, MOUNTAIN VIEW RANGER DISTRICT, WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST, SUMMIT COUNTY, UTAH (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1993). AN - 16356101; 11379 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an exploratory oil well in the Main Fork of the Bear River drainage on the Evanston District of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Summit County, Utah is proposed. In January 1994, the Forest Service approved Chevron's Surface Use Plan of Operations for the project. Subsequently, Double Eagle Petroleum and Mining assumed control of this project and in September of 1995 initiated construction of the road providing access to the drill site. Construction was halted in November 1995 due to frozen conditions. Due to non-leased lands adjacent to the proposed site, Double Eagle requested a lease suspension which the Bureau of Land Management granted. The project was delayed until a leasing decision was made as part of the 2003 forest plan revision. In 2003, Double Eagle acquired the oil and gas leases on those adjacent lands. Rima Exploration, in partnership with Double Eagle, is not interested in completing this project. Completing the project would involve finishing 2.8 miles of partially constructed access road, construction of a 33.5-acre drill pad, and drilling the exploration well. If the well becomes productive, it would be completed for production. If it turned out to be a dry hole, the drill site and portions of the access road would be reclaimed. This abbreviated final supplemental EIS, considers two well site alternatives, as well as alternatives regarding road management, water sources, gravel sources, and a No Action Alternative; only additions and errata are provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Access to and development of the site would provide the potential for exploitation of valuable hydrocarbon resources in line with the multiple-use directives outlined in the most recent revision of the forest plan. Oil produced at the well would help provide for regional needs and reduce the nations dependence on foreign sources of energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road construction and well site development would displace vegetation and disturb soils during the development and protection stages of the project, and well facilities would mar visual aesthetics in the vicinity. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050040, 131 pages, January 28, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Drilling KW - Forests KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Leasing KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wells KW - Utah KW - Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16356101?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TABLE+TOP+EXPLORATORY+OIL+AND+GAS+WELL%2C+MOUNTAIN+VIEW+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+WASATCH-CACHE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUMMIT+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1993%29.&rft.title=TABLE+TOP+EXPLORATORY+OIL+AND+GAS+WELL%2C+MOUNTAIN+VIEW+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+WASATCH-CACHE+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUMMIT+COUNTY%2C+UTAH+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1993%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Mountain View, Wyoming; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 28, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAVAJO NATION TEN-YEAR FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN ALTERNATIVES, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, AND UTAH (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF AUGUST 1999). AN - 16342081; 11380 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a 10-year land and resource management plan for the Navajo Forest of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah is proposed. The 596,725-acre forest lies in the Chuska Mountains and Defiance Plateau areas of the Navajo National along the Arizona-New Mexico border. For hundreds of years the forest has provided the Navajo Tribe with transitional resources, including firewood, construction material, grazing land, food, herbal medicines, ceremonial items, leased areas, and raw material for crafts. The forest continues to provide these same resources as well as a diverse biological habitat for a variety of wildlife, The forest also contains substantial timber resources, with 312,000 acres considered available for commercial timber exploitation. Major issues identified during scoping include those associated with timber resources, other forest resources, socio-economics, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and air quality. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final supplement to the draft EIS of August 1999. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4), which would implement an even-aged and uneven-aged management approach, would designate 253,754 acres for commercial timberland, 79,205 acres for non-forested uses, 128,894 acres as administratively unavailable, 60,137 acres as less productive, and 74,735 as special management areas. Approximately 15.9 million board feet could be harvested annually. The alternative would promote timber production within sites with the highest commercial value; manage the forest landscape toward a mosaic of even-aged forest blocks of 100 acres or less interspersed with lands removed from commercial timber harvest and connected by corridors of uneven-aged forest in which stand structural diversity would be maximized; restore and protect unique wildlife habitat through restriction of timber harvest, forest protection activities, mitigation measures, and monitoring of sensitive species and rangeland; regenerate over-mature stands while maintaining some large trees for recruitment into new stands and increasing average tree diameter across the forest; obtain acceptable forest growth and maximize volume production while providing forage and other multiple-use benefits; provide conditions suitable for establishment of natural and artificial regeneration; satisfy local demand for firewood and poles; control erosion and sedimentation of streams through closure an reclamation of 125 miles of road; and enhance recreational resources by developing a 1.5-mile hiking trail. Silvicultural techniques would include singletree selection on 24,000 acres, group selection on 8,100 acres, and group shelter wood cut on 13,000 acres. Specific mitigation measures would be outlined for Chuska Tassel-eared squirrel, red squirrel, blue grouse, mule deer, black bear, northern goshawk, Mexican spotted owl, and peregrine falcon. The annual funding requirements for implementing the preferred alternative are estimated at $651,637. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would promote the sustained use and protection of forest resources, guide development of multi-year implementation programs under congressional mandate, and provide direction to archive on-the-ground results. Demand for forest products would be met while protection of the forest ecosystem would be ensured. Local employment rolls jobs would be expanded, including employment opportunities for Navajo workers. The preferred alternative would have the greatest positive impact with respect to habitat for threatened and endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Prescribed fire would degrade aesthetics and air quality. Timber harvesting would result in erosion and sedimentation of receiving waters, destroy wildlife habitat temporarily, and negatively affect forest home site residents. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638), and National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (25 U.S.C. 450). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 99-0361D, Volume 23, Number 4 and 00-0204F, Volume 24, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050041, Final Supplement-137 pages, Appendices--311 pages, January 28, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Range Management KW - Sediment KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Indian Forest Resources Management Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16342081?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAVAJO+NATION+TEN-YEAR+FOREST+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+ALTERNATIVES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+AND+UTAH+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+AUGUST+1999%29.&rft.title=NAVAJO+NATION+TEN-YEAR+FOREST+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+ALTERNATIVES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+AND+UTAH+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+AUGUST+1999%29.&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: January 28, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MCGREGOR RANGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, SOUTHERN OTERO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 36438491; 11377 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of the resource management plan for public lands and resources within McGregor Range in southern Otero County, New Mexico is proposed. The amended plan would revise the 1986 White Sands Resource Management Plan and replace the McGregor Range resource management plan. Land tenure within McGregor Range is a mix of land owned-in-fee by the U.S. Army (10 percent), federal land administered by the U.S. Forest Service (three percent), and land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (87 percent) but withdrawn from public domain for military use. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to rights-of-way priority, priority watershed and habitat management, vegetative sale areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), livestock grazing, and recreation resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Specific areas addressed include land tenure and realty, transportation and access, soils, water quality, watershed management, air quality, vegetation, wildlife habitat, special status species, livestock grazing, fire management, hazardous materials, cultural and paleontological resources, vegetation resources, visual resources, special management areas, social and economic conditions, and unexploded military ordnance. Alternatives A through C focus on resource use and production, but emphasize conservation, protection, and enhancement of natural and cultural resources. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative A), efforts regarding watershed management would be reprioritized. Two wildlife habitat management plans would encompass large part of the range; one plan addresses the Sacramento Mountains foothills habitat and the other the range's grassland habitat. Military impact areas would continue to be closed to timber harvest and exploitation of other vegetative resources. The existing Black Grama Grassland ACEC would be retained as such, and the Escondida Site would be designated as a new ACEC. An access management plan and an educational plan would be developed in order to designate individual routes and improve understanding of the ACECs and other areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use resource values and conservation within the range. Access and educational programming would result in more consistent management of recreation and public access and promote public safety. ACEC designation and management would increase protection and user and researcher knowledge of the range. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Certain management activities, exploitative uses, and military uses in the area would destroy vegetation and disturb soils and the associated wildlife habitat. Prescribed burning would degrade air quality as well as destroying vegetation and damaging soils. ACEC designation and continued military uses within the area would result in reduced accessibility for recreational visitors, livestock, and other users. Military uses would require explosion of ordnance, polluting soils, groundwater, and surface flows, and unexploded ordnance would add contaminants and create safety hazards for visitors and management personnel. LEGAL MANDATES: Engel Act (P.L. 85-337), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-65). JF - EPA number: 050038, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, CD-ROM, January 27, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/NM.PL-05-03/1610 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - McGregor Range KW - New Mexico KW - White Sands Resource Management KW - Engel Act, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36438491?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MCGREGOR+RANGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+OTERO+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=MCGREGOR+RANGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+OTERO+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Cruces, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MCGREGOR RANGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, SOUTHERN OTERO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MCGREGOR RANGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, SOUTHERN OTERO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 36369720; 050348D-050038_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of the resource management plan for public lands and resources within McGregor Range in southern Otero County, New Mexico is proposed. The amended plan would revise the 1986 White Sands Resource Management Plan and replace the McGregor Range resource management plan. Land tenure within McGregor Range is a mix of land owned-in-fee by the U.S. Army (10 percent), federal land administered by the U.S. Forest Service (three percent), and land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (87 percent) but withdrawn from public domain for military use. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to rights-of-way priority, priority watershed and habitat management, vegetative sale areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), livestock grazing, and recreation resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Specific areas addressed include land tenure and realty, transportation and access, soils, water quality, watershed management, air quality, vegetation, wildlife habitat, special status species, livestock grazing, fire management, hazardous materials, cultural and paleontological resources, vegetation resources, visual resources, special management areas, social and economic conditions, and unexploded military ordnance. Alternatives A through C focus on resource use and production, but emphasize conservation, protection, and enhancement of natural and cultural resources. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative A), efforts regarding watershed management would be reprioritized. Two wildlife habitat management plans would encompass large part of the range; one plan addresses the Sacramento Mountains foothills habitat and the other the range's grassland habitat. Military impact areas would continue to be closed to timber harvest and exploitation of other vegetative resources. The existing Black Grama Grassland ACEC would be retained as such, and the Escondida Site would be designated as a new ACEC. An access management plan and an educational plan would be developed in order to designate individual routes and improve understanding of the ACECs and other areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use resource values and conservation within the range. Access and educational programming would result in more consistent management of recreation and public access and promote public safety. ACEC designation and management would increase protection and user and researcher knowledge of the range. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Certain management activities, exploitative uses, and military uses in the area would destroy vegetation and disturb soils and the associated wildlife habitat. Prescribed burning would degrade air quality as well as destroying vegetation and damaging soils. ACEC designation and continued military uses within the area would result in reduced accessibility for recreational visitors, livestock, and other users. Military uses would require explosion of ordnance, polluting soils, groundwater, and surface flows, and unexploded ordnance would add contaminants and create safety hazards for visitors and management personnel. LEGAL MANDATES: Engel Act (P.L. 85-337), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-65). JF - EPA number: 050038, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, CD-ROM, January 27, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/NM.PL-05-03/1610 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - McGregor Range KW - New Mexico KW - White Sands Resource Management KW - Engel Act, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369720?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MCGREGOR+RANGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+OTERO+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=MCGREGOR+RANGE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SOUTHERN+OTERO+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Cruces, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 2004). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 2004). AN - 36369006; 050418D-050043_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of approximately 127 miles of US 6 from Interstate 15 (I-15) in Spanish Fork to I-70 near Green River in Utah, Wasatch, Carbon, and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. US 6 constitutes a part of the national highway system and operates as a major east-west highway serving an important statewide transportation function by linking two major interstates, I-15 and I-70. US 6 is an important link between the rural communities of central and southeastern Utah and the populous Wasatch Front. Segments of US were constructed over 60 years ago and do not meet current safety design requirements. The increased travel demand on US 6 due to population growth along the Wasatch Front has resulted in a decreased level of service that does not meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials guidance for a highway of this class. Design flaws and increased traffic volumes have resulted in unacceptable accident and fatality rates for a roadway of this type. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2004. The Passing Lane Alternative would add passing lanes at selected locations along the corridor. This alternative would provide four-lane sections in areas on both sides of the highway where passing is required. The Four Lane Alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction through the entire corridor. Under either action alternative, existing substandard design elements would be upgraded to current design standards and median barriers or other median treatments would be added as appropriate. The Peerless port of entry would be relocated to improve safety as a component of either action alternative. Costs of the Passing Lane and Four Lane alternatives are estimated at $595.8 million and $678.4 million, respectively. This draft supplement to the draft EIS addresses the Four Lane Alternative, as well as impacts to air quality, water quality, wetlands, and mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the highway to allow it to meet current design standards while reducing both the overall accident and fatality rates. The proposed action would also reduce overall congestion, generally improve the level of service, and maintain the highway as a key component of Utah's transportation network. Either action alternative would improve the level of service to C or better. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Passing Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7,7 acres of wetlands, 1,779 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. Travel times under this alternative would be greater than under the Four Lane Alternative, increasing user costs, and a few segments of the highway would provide an unacceptable level of service. The Four-Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7.7 acres of wetlands, 2,153 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. This alternative would increase impervious surface within the corridor significantly more than the Passing Lane Alternative. Either alternative would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at 96 sensitive receptor sites. Either alternative would affect the federally protected Ute ladies'-tresses, clay phacelia, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker, as well as two state-listed bird species; 10 significant historical, three significant archaeological, eight significant architectural, and one significant paleontological sites; disturb 11 potential hazardous waste 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.), 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: 050043, 92 pages and maps, January 27, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-04-01-SD KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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, 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/36369006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2004%29.&rft.title=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2004%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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 2004). AN - 16345739; 11382 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of approximately 127 miles of US 6 from Interstate 15 (I-15) in Spanish Fork to I-70 near Green River in Utah, Wasatch, Carbon, and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. US 6 constitutes a part of the national highway system and operates as a major east-west highway serving an important statewide transportation function by linking two major interstates, I-15 and I-70. US 6 is an important link between the rural communities of central and southeastern Utah and the populous Wasatch Front. Segments of US were constructed over 60 years ago and do not meet current safety design requirements. The increased travel demand on US 6 due to population growth along the Wasatch Front has resulted in a decreased level of service that does not meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials guidance for a highway of this class. Design flaws and increased traffic volumes have resulted in unacceptable accident and fatality rates for a roadway of this type. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2004. The Passing Lane Alternative would add passing lanes at selected locations along the corridor. This alternative would provide four-lane sections in areas on both sides of the highway where passing is required. The Four Lane Alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction through the entire corridor. Under either action alternative, existing substandard design elements would be upgraded to current design standards and median barriers or other median treatments would be added as appropriate. The Peerless port of entry would be relocated to improve safety as a component of either action alternative. Costs of the Passing Lane and Four Lane alternatives are estimated at $595.8 million and $678.4 million, respectively. This draft supplement to the draft EIS addresses the Four Lane Alternative, as well as impacts to air quality, water quality, wetlands, and mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the highway to allow it to meet current design standards while reducing both the overall accident and fatality rates. The proposed action would also reduce overall congestion, generally improve the level of service, and maintain the highway as a key component of Utah's transportation network. Either action alternative would improve the level of service to C or better. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Passing Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7,7 acres of wetlands, 1,779 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. Travel times under this alternative would be greater than under the Four Lane Alternative, increasing user costs, and a few segments of the highway would provide an unacceptable level of service. The Four-Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7.7 acres of wetlands, 2,153 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. This alternative would increase impervious surface within the corridor significantly more than the Passing Lane Alternative. Either alternative would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at 96 sensitive receptor sites. Either alternative would affect the federally protected Ute ladies'-tresses, clay phacelia, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker, as well as two state-listed bird species; 10 significant historical, three significant archaeological, eight significant architectural, and one significant paleontological sites; disturb 11 potential hazardous waste 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.), 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: 050043, 92 pages and maps, January 27, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-04-01-SD KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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, 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/16345739?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2004%29.&rft.title=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2004%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 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 1] T2 - NON-NATIVE DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE AND GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, AN - 36370241; 050344D-050030_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. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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, both target species at a pre-determined 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 eradiation of both species from the Seashore b 2020 using a combination of lethal removal and long-acting contraceptives. A number of alternatives calling for, fencing, hunting, contraception, and/or research were considered but rejected. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would involve removal of all nonnative deer by 2020 via a combination of lethal removal and fertility control. Sharpshooters would implement culling. 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 reg-legged frog Coho salmon and steerhead trout, California freshwater shrimp, Myrtle's silverspot 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. JF - EPA number: 050030, 300 pages, January 24, 2005 PY - 2005 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/36370241?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-24&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%2C&rft.title=NON-NATIVE+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+AND+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 24, 2005 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, AN - 16357878; 11369 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. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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, both target species at a pre-determined 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 eradiation of both species from the Seashore b 2020 using a combination of lethal removal and long-acting contraceptives. A number of alternatives calling for, fencing, hunting, contraception, and/or research were considered but rejected. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would involve removal of all nonnative deer by 2020 via a combination of lethal removal and fertility control. Sharpshooters would implement culling. 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 reg-legged frog Coho salmon and steerhead trout, California freshwater shrimp, Myrtle's silverspot 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. JF - EPA number: 050030, 300 pages, January 24, 2005 PY - 2005 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/16357878?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-24&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%2C&rft.title=NON-NATIVE+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+POINT+REYES+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+AND+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 24, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 131 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912111130; 11366-7_0131 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 131 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912111130?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 129 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912111128; 11366-7_0129 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 129 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912111128?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 125 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912111127; 11366-7_0125 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 125 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912111127?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 119 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912111126; 11366-7_0119 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 119 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912111126?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 133 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912110971; 11366-7_0133 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 133 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912110971?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 132 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912110963; 11366-7_0132 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 132 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912110963?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 122 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912110957; 11366-7_0122 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 122 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912110957?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 121 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912110949; 11366-7_0121 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 121 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912110949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 32 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912110939; 11366-7_0032 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912110939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 31 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912110931; 11366-7_0031 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912110931?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 128 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912110861; 11366-7_0128 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 128 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912110861?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 127 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912110853; 11366-7_0127 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 127 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912110853?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 126 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912110842; 11366-7_0126 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 126 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912110842?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 124 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912109929; 11366-7_0124 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 124 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912109929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 134 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912109911; 11366-7_0134 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 134 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912109911?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 34 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912109884; 11366-7_0034 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912109884?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 33 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912109861; 11366-7_0033 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912109861?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 19 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912109832; 11366-7_0019 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912109832?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 37 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912107159; 11366-7_0037 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912107159?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 36 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912107105; 11366-7_0036 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912107105?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 159 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106904; 11366-7_0159 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 159 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106904?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 158 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106861; 11366-7_0158 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 158 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106861?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 156 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106785; 11366-7_0156 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 156 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106785?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 118 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106762; 11366-7_0118 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 118 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106762?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 155 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106747; 11366-7_0155 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 155 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106747?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 111 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106689; 11366-7_0111 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 111 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106689?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 115 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106655; 11366-7_0115 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 115 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106655?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 110 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106644; 11366-7_0110 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 110 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106644?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 106 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106612; 11366-7_0106 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 106 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 103 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106599; 11366-7_0103 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 103 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106599?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 102 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106563; 11366-7_0102 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 102 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106563?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 104 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106530; 11366-7_0104 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 104 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106530?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 95 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106493; 11366-7_0095 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 95 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106493?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 97 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106473; 11366-7_0097 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 97 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106473?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 94 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106458; 11366-7_0094 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 94 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106458?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 85 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106435; 11366-7_0085 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 85 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106435?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 84 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106403; 11366-7_0084 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 84 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106403?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 77 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106387; 11366-7_0077 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 77 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106387?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 17 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106369; 11366-7_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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106369?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 76 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106355; 11366-7_0076 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 76 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106355?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 16 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106346; 11366-7_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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106346?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 71 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106339; 11366-7_0071 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 71 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106339?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 70 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106325; 11366-7_0070 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 70 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 61 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106308; 11366-7_0061 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 61 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106308?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 60 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106281; 11366-7_0060 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 60 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106281?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 59 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106257; 11366-7_0059 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 59 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106257?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 58 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106231; 11366-7_0058 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 58 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106231?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 56 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106171; 11366-7_0056 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 56 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 55 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106147; 11366-7_0055 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 55 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106147?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 9 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106039; 11366-7_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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106039?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 5 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912106005; 11366-7_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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912106005?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 109 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912105719; 11366-7_0109 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 109 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912105719?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 108 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912105679; 11366-7_0108 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 108 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912105679?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 107 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912105636; 11366-7_0107 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 107 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912105636?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 96 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912105590; 11366-7_0096 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 96 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912105590?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 114 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912104295; 11366-7_0114 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 114 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912104295?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 80 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912104075; 11366-7_0080 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 80 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912104075?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 151 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912104074; 11366-7_0151 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 151 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912104074?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 150 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912104027; 11366-7_0150 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 150 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912104027?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 11 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103946; 11366-7_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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 145 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103858; 11366-7_0145 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 145 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103858?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 141 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103845; 11366-7_0141 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 141 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103845?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 139 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103812; 11366-7_0139 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 139 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103812?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 138 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103796; 11366-7_0138 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 138 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 137 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103780; 11366-7_0137 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 137 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103780?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 101 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103771; 11366-7_0101 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 101 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103771?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 136 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103765; 11366-7_0136 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 136 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103765?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 100 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103760; 11366-7_0100 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 100 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103760?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 52 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103755; 11366-7_0052 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 52 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103755?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 99 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103750; 11366-7_0099 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 99 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103750?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 51 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103746; 11366-7_0051 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 51 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103746?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 75 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103740; 11366-7_0075 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 75 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103740?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 50 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103733; 11366-7_0050 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103733?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 74 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103730; 11366-7_0074 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 74 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103730?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 49 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103724; 11366-7_0049 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103724?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 8 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103721; 11366-7_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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103721?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 48 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103712; 11366-7_0048 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 48 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103712?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 47 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103701; 11366-7_0047 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 47 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103701?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Susan&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Developmental+and+Behavioral+Pediatrics&rft.issn=0196206X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097%2FDBP.0b013e31818af9be LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 46 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103688; 11366-7_0046 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103688?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=310&rft.isbn=0-387-26374-8&rft.btitle=Rational+emotive+behavioral+approaches+to+childhood+disorders%3A+Theory%2C+practice+and+research&rft.title=Rational+emotive+behavioral+approaches+to+childhood+disorders%3A+Theory%2C+practice+and+research&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2F0-387-26375-6_11 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 43 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103683; 11366-7_0043 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103683?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Andreas&rft.date=2016-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=245&rft.isbn=978-0-12-800935-2&rft.btitle=Neuroimaging+personality%2C+social+cognition%2C+and+character&rft.title=Neuroimaging+personality%2C+social+cognition%2C+and+character&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2FB978-0-12-800935-2.00012-9 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 42 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103674; 11366-7_0042 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 42 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103674?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 27 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103624; 11366-7_0027 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103624?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 26 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103599; 11366-7_0026 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103599?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 25 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103567; 11366-7_0025 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103567?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 24 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103533; 11366-7_0024 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 23 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912103505; 11366-7_0023 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912103505?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 93 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912102911; 11366-7_0093 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 93 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912102911?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 83 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912102858; 11366-7_0083 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 83 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912102858?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 82 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912102798; 11366-7_0082 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 82 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912102798?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 81 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912102762; 11366-7_0081 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 81 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912102762?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 66 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912102714; 11366-7_0066 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 66 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912102714?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 65 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912102671; 11366-7_0065 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 65 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912102671?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=978-1339415956&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Does+a+specialized+summer+camp+change+social-emotional+competencies+in+children+with+academic+difficulties%3F&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 63 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912102585; 11366-7_0063 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 63 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912102585?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 62 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912102537; 11366-7_0062 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 62 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912102537?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 14 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912102504; 11366-7_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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912102504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 12 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912102429; 11366-7_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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912102429?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=978-0-415-87901-9&rft.btitle=International+guide+to+student+achievement&rft.title=International+guide+to+student+achievement&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 2 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912102376; 11366-7_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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912102376?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 73 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912102274; 11366-7_0073 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 73 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912102274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 18 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912102170; 11366-7_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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912102170?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Butler%2C+Linda+Bruene%3BRomasz-McDonald%2C+Tanya%3BElias%2C+Maurice+J.&rft.aulast=Butler&rft.aufirst=Linda&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=978-0-87822-656-6&rft.btitle=Social+decision+making%2Fsocial+problem+solving%3A+A+curriculum+for+academic%2C+social%2C+and+emotional+learning%2C+Grades+K%E2%80%931&rft.title=Social+decision+making%2Fsocial+problem+solving%3A+A+curriculum+for+academic%2C+social%2C+and+emotional+learning%2C+Grades+K%E2%80%931&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 7 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101941; 11366-7_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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101941?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Susan&rft.date=2013-10-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=953&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Early+Education+and+Development&rft.issn=10409289&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F10409289.2013.825364 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 6 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101887; 11366-7_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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 69 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101666; 11366-7_0069 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 69 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101666?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=3&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Emotional+%26+Behavioural+Difficulties&rft.issn=13632752&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F13632752.2012.675137 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 68 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101628; 11366-7_0068 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 68 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101628?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 90 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101604; 11366-7_0090 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 90 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101604?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 67 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101593; 11366-7_0067 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 67 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101593?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 89 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101577; 11366-7_0089 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 89 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101577?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 4 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101552; 11366-7_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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101552?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 3 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101507; 11366-7_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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101507?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 148 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101456; 11366-7_0148 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 148 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101456?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 92 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101454; 11366-7_0092 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 92 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101454?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 88 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101434; 11366-7_0088 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 88 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101434?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 147 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101410; 11366-7_0147 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 147 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101410?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Falguni&rft.date=2014-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Advisory+programs+in+middle+and+high+schools&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 91 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101396; 11366-7_0091 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 91 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101396?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 87 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101383; 11366-7_0087 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 87 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101383?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 146 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101371; 11366-7_0146 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 146 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101371?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 144 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101327; 11366-7_0144 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 144 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101327?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&rft.genre=dissertations+%26+theses&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Luntta%2C+Mark+Hans&rft.aulast=Luntta&rft.aufirst=Mark&rft.date=1996-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=An+investigation+of+empathy+and+social+anxiety+in+learning+disabled+and+non-learning+disabled+male+college+students&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 143 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101293; 11366-7_0143 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 143 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101293?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 142 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101252; 11366-7_0142 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 142 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101252?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 45 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101186; 11366-7_0045 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101186?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 44 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101145; 11366-7_0044 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 40 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101110; 11366-7_0040 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101110?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 29 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101086; 11366-7_0029 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101086?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 28 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912101064; 11366-7_0028 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912101064?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 135 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912100910; 11366-7_0135 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 135 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912100910?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 22 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912100871; 11366-7_0022 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912100871?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=0-87822-514-5&rft.btitle=Social+decision+making%2Fsocial+problem+solving%3A+A+Curriculum+for+Academic%2C+Social+and+Emotional+Learning%3A+Grades+4-5&rft.title=Social+decision+making%2Fsocial+problem+solving%3A+A+Curriculum+for+Academic%2C+Social+and+Emotional+Learning%3A+Grades+4-5&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 21 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912100819; 11366-7_0021 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912100819?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 39 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912100605; 11366-7_0039 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 39 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912100605?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN [Part 38 of 159] T2 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 912100547; 11366-7_0038 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/912100547?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHEAST NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA: AMENDED INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN AN - 16346355; 11366 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The 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 adddress 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 Teshepuk Lake, all water intake structures in fish-bearing or non fish-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 Teshepuk Lake. 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 abstract of the draft EIS on the amended activity plan, See 04-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050027, Volume 1--691 pages, Volume 2--677 pages, Volume 3--326 pages and maps, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 05-001 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Historic Sites Surveys 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 - 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/16346355?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&rft.title=NORTHEAST+NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE%2C+ALASKA%3A+AMENDED+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BELOIT CASINO PROJECT, BELOIT, WISCONSIN. AN - 16345691; 11365 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into trust of 26 acres of land in the city of Beloit, Rock County, Wisconsin for the development of a Class III gaming casino and ancillary facilities is proposed via an application by the St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin and the Bad River Band of he Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians (jointly known as "the Tribes"). The proposal would involve a fee-to-trust acquisition of the site, which lies adjacent to and west of Interstate 90 in the southeast portion of Beloit. Federal grants currently provide most of the Tribes' government revenue, an untenable situation in the long-term as these funds are steadily decreasing in availability while funding needs are increasing. Tribal governments must now fund programs previously managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. The Tribes are working to provide essential governmental services, efficient infrastructure, and sufficient housing for tribal members. Feasibility studies, based on the economics of the introduction of slot machines and blackjack table games, indicate that there is a market for a casino in the area. The proposed action and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action would include the casino, a hotel, convention center, and water park. More specifically, on the trust lands, the proposal would provide for a 10,00-suare-foot casino with 3,000 slot machines and 100 gaming tables; a 35,000-square-foot convention/entertainment center; restaurants and bars, including a 300-seat buffet restaurant, 150-seat upscale restaurant, 150-seat coffee shop, 250-seat food court, an additional full-table-service sit-down restaurant, 250-seat sports bar/night club, 7,000-square-foot child care facility, 5,000-square-foot teen video arcade, and gift shop. A 500-unit hotel, 50,000-square-foot water park, and a heater/auditorium would be constructed on fee property adjacent to the trust property. The entire facility, including the fee land and the trust land, would occupy 65 acres. Parking facilities for 5,000 to 7,000 cars would be located on both properties. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino would expand governmental revenue of the Tribes by maximizing net revenues. Sources of revenues for the Tribes would be diversified to provide an ongoing independent economic bas to support tribal governmental functions, which, in turn, would decrease dependence on limited federal and state funds. The gaming tables would attract 5.8 million visitors annually, as opposed to 4.9 million without gaming tables. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the casino and ancillary facilities on the site would affect vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat, including wetlands, surface water flows, and floodplain land. The site would lie within a coastal zone. Traffic in the area would increase significantly, causing congestion, particularly at some intersections. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. JF - EPA number: 050026, Draft EIS--232 pages, Appendices--198 pages, January 21, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Research and Development KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Coastal Zones KW - Floodplains KW - Hotels KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16345691?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BELOIT+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+BELOIT%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=BELOIT+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+BELOIT%2C+WISCONSIN.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 21, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT LONG-TERM SERVICE CONTRACT RENEWALS, AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT LONG-TERM SERVICE CONTRACT RENEWALS, AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36371276; 040444D-050012_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The renewal of long-term water service contracts to deliver water from the Central Valley Project (CVP_ for agricultural and municipal and industrial uses to the American River Division water service contractors in California is proposed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current contract system, are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives present a range of water service agreement provisions that could be implemented for long-term contract renewals. Action Alternative A would be based on an April 2000 proposal presented by the CVP for water service contractors to the U.S Bureau of Reclamation. Alternative 2 is based on a November 1999 proposal presented by the bureau to the CVP water service contractors. The primary differences in the alternatives relate to methods addressing tiered water pricing, the definition of municipal and industrial users, water measurement, and water conservation. The tiered water pricing assumptions would be identical under the no Action Alternative and Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, the tiered water pricing assumptions would increase CVP water rates as compared to the No Action Alternative. None of the three alternatives would involve the construction of facilities or changes in water service areas. General plans for the areas within the American River water service contractors service areas would include protections for biological resources, land use, cultural resources, air quality, soils, visual resources, and recreational opportunities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Long-term contract renewal would continue beneficial use of water, developed and managed as part of the CVP, with a reasonable balance among competing demands, including the needs of irrigation and domestic uses, fish and wildlife protection and mitigation, fish and wildlife enhancement, over generation, recreation, and other uses consistent with the requirements imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board and the CVP authority; incorporate certain administrative conditions into the renewed contract to ensure CVP continued compliance with current federal reclamation law and other applicable statutes; and allow the continued reimbursement to the federal government for the costs related to CVP construction and operation. Regardless of the alternative selected, growth would continue in Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Virtually all the long-term contract renewal actions would lie within the range of existing conditions. In most instances the responsibility to address effects to land uses would be with the local governments as apart of their California Environmental Quality Act compliance for actions of municipalities. If the tiered water pricing made the CVP water unaffordable to some existing users, those users could increase groundwater use to replace more expensive CVP water, possibly resulting in localized overdraft conditions in all of the water service contractors' service areas. Moreover, a higher cost for CVP water could result in the loss of existing or future manufacturing or agricultural activities. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050012, 131 pages, January 13, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 05-02 KW - Agriculture KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Economic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Conservation KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - American River KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371276?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT+LONG-TERM+SERVICE+CONTRACT+RENEWALS%2C+AMERICAN+RIVER+DIVISION%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT+LONG-TERM+SERVICE+CONTRACT+RENEWALS%2C+AMERICAN+RIVER+DIVISION%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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 13, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT LONG-TERM SERVICE CONTRACT RENEWALS, AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16358063; 11351 AB - PURPOSE: The renewal of long-term water service contracts to deliver water from the Central Valley Project (CVP_ for agricultural and municipal and industrial uses to the American River Division water service contractors in California is proposed. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current contract system, are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives present a range of water service agreement provisions that could be implemented for long-term contract renewals. Action Alternative A would be based on an April 2000 proposal presented by the CVP for water service contractors to the U.S Bureau of Reclamation. Alternative 2 is based on a November 1999 proposal presented by the bureau to the CVP water service contractors. The primary differences in the alternatives relate to methods addressing tiered water pricing, the definition of municipal and industrial users, water measurement, and water conservation. The tiered water pricing assumptions would be identical under the no Action Alternative and Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, the tiered water pricing assumptions would increase CVP water rates as compared to the No Action Alternative. None of the three alternatives would involve the construction of facilities or changes in water service areas. General plans for the areas within the American River water service contractors service areas would include protections for biological resources, land use, cultural resources, air quality, soils, visual resources, and recreational opportunities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Long-term contract renewal would continue beneficial use of water, developed and managed as part of the CVP, with a reasonable balance among competing demands, including the needs of irrigation and domestic uses, fish and wildlife protection and mitigation, fish and wildlife enhancement, over generation, recreation, and other uses consistent with the requirements imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board and the CVP authority; incorporate certain administrative conditions into the renewed contract to ensure CVP continued compliance with current federal reclamation law and other applicable statutes; and allow the continued reimbursement to the federal government for the costs related to CVP construction and operation. Regardless of the alternative selected, growth would continue in Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Virtually all the long-term contract renewal actions would lie within the range of existing conditions. In most instances the responsibility to address effects to land uses would be with the local governments as apart of their California Environmental Quality Act compliance for actions of municipalities. If the tiered water pricing made the CVP water unaffordable to some existing users, those users could increase groundwater use to replace more expensive CVP water, possibly resulting in localized overdraft conditions in all of the water service contractors' service areas. Moreover, a higher cost for CVP water could result in the loss of existing or future manufacturing or agricultural activities. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050012, 131 pages, January 13, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 05-02 KW - Agriculture KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Economic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Land Use KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Conservation KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - American River KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16358063?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT+LONG-TERM+SERVICE+CONTRACT+RENEWALS%2C+AMERICAN+RIVER+DIVISION%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT+LONG-TERM+SERVICE+CONTRACT+RENEWALS%2C+AMERICAN+RIVER+DIVISION%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 13, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2000.) [Part 2 of 5] T2 - MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2000.) AN - 36378526; 11347-050008_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised comprehensive management plan for the 81-mile Merced Wild and Scenic River in the Yosemite National Park of California is proposed. Major issues identified during scoping include those related to the outstanding remarkable values of the river corridor, the free-flowing condition of the river, the purpose of the national park, natural resources, cultural resources, land use and facilities, visitor experience, planning process, and management and operations. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the final EIS of June 2000. This draft supplement to the final EIS responds to an October 2003 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The supplement addresses the court's requirement that the revised management plan must implement a user capacity program that would provide for specific measurable limits on use and that would reassess the river corridor boundary in the El Portal administrative site based on the location of outstandingly remarkable values. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the management regime selected in the final EIS, are considered. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would emphasize visitor experience and resource protection (VERP). The alternative would include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative, including stipulations on boundaries, classifications, outstandingly remarkable values, management zoning, and river protection overlay). Alternative 2 would add the implementation of the VERP user copait component, along with intern limits on some park facilities. The El Portal segment boundary would be redrawn based on the location of the outstanding remarkable values dentified to within 0.25 mile of the river. Alternative 3 would also include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative as well as a VERP user capacity component and a maximum daily quota for each river segment, a maximum annual visitation quota, and a daily quota on day-use hikers to Half Dome. The El Portal sement would have a 0.25 mile boundary. Alternative 4 would contain all the elements of the No Action Alternative as well as a VERP user capacity component, quotas for each river management zone, and an annual maximum visitation quota. The El Portal segment boundary would be drawn according to the location of outstandingly remarkable values. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would protect and enhance natural resources associated with the river, protect and restore natural hydrological and geomorphic processes, protect and enhance cultural resources, provide diverse recreational and educational experiences, and provide for appropriate land uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plans that do not involve removal of man-made structures would continue all such structures to detract from the wild and scenic nature of the river corridor. Alternatives emphasizing the wild and scenic nature of the river over visitor access would decrease the recreational value of the river for visitors seeking more developed forms of recreation. LEGAL MANDATES: California Wilderness Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-425), El Portal Administrative Site Authorization Act (72 Stat. 1771), Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-363), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0173D, Volume 24, Number 2 and 00-0460F, Volume, 24, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050008, 915 pages and maps, January 6, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Land Use KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Merced River KW - Yosemite National Park KW - California Wilderness Act of 1984, Compliance KW - El Portal Administrative Site Authorization Act, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Omnibus Appropriations Act, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378526?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+REVISED+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2000.%29&rft.title=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+REVISED+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2000.%29&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: January 6, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2000.) [Part 1 of 5] T2 - MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2000.) AN - 36378469; 11347-050008_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised comprehensive management plan for the 81-mile Merced Wild and Scenic River in the Yosemite National Park of California is proposed. Major issues identified during scoping include those related to the outstanding remarkable values of the river corridor, the free-flowing condition of the river, the purpose of the national park, natural resources, cultural resources, land use and facilities, visitor experience, planning process, and management and operations. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the final EIS of June 2000. This draft supplement to the final EIS responds to an October 2003 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The supplement addresses the court's requirement that the revised management plan must implement a user capacity program that would provide for specific measurable limits on use and that would reassess the river corridor boundary in the El Portal administrative site based on the location of outstandingly remarkable values. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the management regime selected in the final EIS, are considered. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would emphasize visitor experience and resource protection (VERP). The alternative would include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative, including stipulations on boundaries, classifications, outstandingly remarkable values, management zoning, and river protection overlay). Alternative 2 would add the implementation of the VERP user copait component, along with intern limits on some park facilities. The El Portal segment boundary would be redrawn based on the location of the outstanding remarkable values dentified to within 0.25 mile of the river. Alternative 3 would also include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative as well as a VERP user capacity component and a maximum daily quota for each river segment, a maximum annual visitation quota, and a daily quota on day-use hikers to Half Dome. The El Portal sement would have a 0.25 mile boundary. Alternative 4 would contain all the elements of the No Action Alternative as well as a VERP user capacity component, quotas for each river management zone, and an annual maximum visitation quota. The El Portal segment boundary would be drawn according to the location of outstandingly remarkable values. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would protect and enhance natural resources associated with the river, protect and restore natural hydrological and geomorphic processes, protect and enhance cultural resources, provide diverse recreational and educational experiences, and provide for appropriate land uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plans that do not involve removal of man-made structures would continue all such structures to detract from the wild and scenic nature of the river corridor. Alternatives emphasizing the wild and scenic nature of the river over visitor access would decrease the recreational value of the river for visitors seeking more developed forms of recreation. LEGAL MANDATES: California Wilderness Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-425), El Portal Administrative Site Authorization Act (72 Stat. 1771), Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-363), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0173D, Volume 24, Number 2 and 00-0460F, Volume, 24, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050008, 915 pages and maps, January 6, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Land Use KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Merced River KW - Yosemite National Park KW - California Wilderness Act of 1984, Compliance KW - El Portal Administrative Site Authorization Act, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Omnibus Appropriations Act, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378469?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+REVISED+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2000.%29&rft.title=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+REVISED+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2000.%29&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: January 6, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2000.) [Part 5 of 5] T2 - MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2000.) AN - 36378207; 11347-050008_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised comprehensive management plan for the 81-mile Merced Wild and Scenic River in the Yosemite National Park of California is proposed. Major issues identified during scoping include those related to the outstanding remarkable values of the river corridor, the free-flowing condition of the river, the purpose of the national park, natural resources, cultural resources, land use and facilities, visitor experience, planning process, and management and operations. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the final EIS of June 2000. This draft supplement to the final EIS responds to an October 2003 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The supplement addresses the court's requirement that the revised management plan must implement a user capacity program that would provide for specific measurable limits on use and that would reassess the river corridor boundary in the El Portal administrative site based on the location of outstandingly remarkable values. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the management regime selected in the final EIS, are considered. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would emphasize visitor experience and resource protection (VERP). The alternative would include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative, including stipulations on boundaries, classifications, outstandingly remarkable values, management zoning, and river protection overlay). Alternative 2 would add the implementation of the VERP user copait component, along with intern limits on some park facilities. The El Portal segment boundary would be redrawn based on the location of the outstanding remarkable values dentified to within 0.25 mile of the river. Alternative 3 would also include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative as well as a VERP user capacity component and a maximum daily quota for each river segment, a maximum annual visitation quota, and a daily quota on day-use hikers to Half Dome. The El Portal sement would have a 0.25 mile boundary. Alternative 4 would contain all the elements of the No Action Alternative as well as a VERP user capacity component, quotas for each river management zone, and an annual maximum visitation quota. The El Portal segment boundary would be drawn according to the location of outstandingly remarkable values. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would protect and enhance natural resources associated with the river, protect and restore natural hydrological and geomorphic processes, protect and enhance cultural resources, provide diverse recreational and educational experiences, and provide for appropriate land uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plans that do not involve removal of man-made structures would continue all such structures to detract from the wild and scenic nature of the river corridor. Alternatives emphasizing the wild and scenic nature of the river over visitor access would decrease the recreational value of the river for visitors seeking more developed forms of recreation. LEGAL MANDATES: California Wilderness Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-425), El Portal Administrative Site Authorization Act (72 Stat. 1771), Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-363), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0173D, Volume 24, Number 2 and 00-0460F, Volume, 24, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050008, 915 pages and maps, January 6, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Land Use KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Merced River KW - Yosemite National Park KW - California Wilderness Act of 1984, Compliance KW - El Portal Administrative Site Authorization Act, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Omnibus Appropriations Act, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378207?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+REVISED+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2000.%29&rft.title=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+REVISED+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2000.%29&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: January 6, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2000.) [Part 3 of 5] T2 - MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2000.) AN - 36378159; 11347-050008_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised comprehensive management plan for the 81-mile Merced Wild and Scenic River in the Yosemite National Park of California is proposed. Major issues identified during scoping include those related to the outstanding remarkable values of the river corridor, the free-flowing condition of the river, the purpose of the national park, natural resources, cultural resources, land use and facilities, visitor experience, planning process, and management and operations. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the final EIS of June 2000. This draft supplement to the final EIS responds to an October 2003 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The supplement addresses the court's requirement that the revised management plan must implement a user capacity program that would provide for specific measurable limits on use and that would reassess the river corridor boundary in the El Portal administrative site based on the location of outstandingly remarkable values. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the management regime selected in the final EIS, are considered. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would emphasize visitor experience and resource protection (VERP). The alternative would include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative, including stipulations on boundaries, classifications, outstandingly remarkable values, management zoning, and river protection overlay). Alternative 2 would add the implementation of the VERP user copait component, along with intern limits on some park facilities. The El Portal segment boundary would be redrawn based on the location of the outstanding remarkable values dentified to within 0.25 mile of the river. Alternative 3 would also include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative as well as a VERP user capacity component and a maximum daily quota for each river segment, a maximum annual visitation quota, and a daily quota on day-use hikers to Half Dome. The El Portal sement would have a 0.25 mile boundary. Alternative 4 would contain all the elements of the No Action Alternative as well as a VERP user capacity component, quotas for each river management zone, and an annual maximum visitation quota. The El Portal segment boundary would be drawn according to the location of outstandingly remarkable values. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would protect and enhance natural resources associated with the river, protect and restore natural hydrological and geomorphic processes, protect and enhance cultural resources, provide diverse recreational and educational experiences, and provide for appropriate land uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plans that do not involve removal of man-made structures would continue all such structures to detract from the wild and scenic nature of the river corridor. Alternatives emphasizing the wild and scenic nature of the river over visitor access would decrease the recreational value of the river for visitors seeking more developed forms of recreation. LEGAL MANDATES: California Wilderness Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-425), El Portal Administrative Site Authorization Act (72 Stat. 1771), Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-363), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0173D, Volume 24, Number 2 and 00-0460F, Volume, 24, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050008, 915 pages and maps, January 6, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Land Use KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Merced River KW - Yosemite National Park KW - California Wilderness Act of 1984, Compliance KW - El Portal Administrative Site Authorization Act, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Omnibus Appropriations Act, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378159?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+REVISED+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2000.%29&rft.title=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+REVISED+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2000.%29&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: January 6, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2000.) [Part 4 of 5] T2 - MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2000.) AN - 36368796; 11347-050008_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised comprehensive management plan for the 81-mile Merced Wild and Scenic River in the Yosemite National Park of California is proposed. Major issues identified during scoping include those related to the outstanding remarkable values of the river corridor, the free-flowing condition of the river, the purpose of the national park, natural resources, cultural resources, land use and facilities, visitor experience, planning process, and management and operations. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the final EIS of June 2000. This draft supplement to the final EIS responds to an October 2003 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The supplement addresses the court's requirement that the revised management plan must implement a user capacity program that would provide for specific measurable limits on use and that would reassess the river corridor boundary in the El Portal administrative site based on the location of outstandingly remarkable values. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the management regime selected in the final EIS, are considered. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would emphasize visitor experience and resource protection (VERP). The alternative would include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative, including stipulations on boundaries, classifications, outstandingly remarkable values, management zoning, and river protection overlay). Alternative 2 would add the implementation of the VERP user copait component, along with intern limits on some park facilities. The El Portal segment boundary would be redrawn based on the location of the outstanding remarkable values dentified to within 0.25 mile of the river. Alternative 3 would also include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative as well as a VERP user capacity component and a maximum daily quota for each river segment, a maximum annual visitation quota, and a daily quota on day-use hikers to Half Dome. The El Portal sement would have a 0.25 mile boundary. Alternative 4 would contain all the elements of the No Action Alternative as well as a VERP user capacity component, quotas for each river management zone, and an annual maximum visitation quota. The El Portal segment boundary would be drawn according to the location of outstandingly remarkable values. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would protect and enhance natural resources associated with the river, protect and restore natural hydrological and geomorphic processes, protect and enhance cultural resources, provide diverse recreational and educational experiences, and provide for appropriate land uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plans that do not involve removal of man-made structures would continue all such structures to detract from the wild and scenic nature of the river corridor. Alternatives emphasizing the wild and scenic nature of the river over visitor access would decrease the recreational value of the river for visitors seeking more developed forms of recreation. LEGAL MANDATES: California Wilderness Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-425), El Portal Administrative Site Authorization Act (72 Stat. 1771), Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-363), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0173D, Volume 24, Number 2 and 00-0460F, Volume, 24, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050008, 915 pages and maps, January 6, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Land Use KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Merced River KW - Yosemite National Park KW - California Wilderness Act of 1984, Compliance KW - El Portal Administrative Site Authorization Act, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Omnibus Appropriations Act, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+REVISED+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2000.%29&rft.title=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+REVISED+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2000.%29&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: January 6, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MERCED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 2000.) AN - 16346470; 11347 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised comprehensive management plan for the 81-mile Merced Wild and Scenic River in the Yosemite National Park of California is proposed. Major issues identified during scoping include those related to the outstanding remarkable values of the river corridor, the free-flowing condition of the river, the purpose of the national park, natural resources, cultural resources, land use and facilities, visitor experience, planning process, and management and operations. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the final EIS of June 2000. This draft supplement to the final EIS responds to an October 2003 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The supplement addresses the court's requirement that the revised management plan must implement a user capacity program that would provide for specific measurable limits on use and that would reassess the river corridor boundary in the El Portal administrative site based on the location of outstandingly remarkable values. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the management regime selected in the final EIS, are considered. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would emphasize visitor experience and resource protection (VERP). The alternative would include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative, including stipulations on boundaries, classifications, outstandingly remarkable values, management zoning, and river protection overlay). Alternative 2 would add the implementation of the VERP user copait component, along with intern limits on some park facilities. The El Portal segment boundary would be redrawn based on the location of the outstanding remarkable values dentified to within 0.25 mile of the river. Alternative 3 would also include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative as well as a VERP user capacity component and a maximum daily quota for each river segment, a maximum annual visitation quota, and a daily quota on day-use hikers to Half Dome. The El Portal sement would have a 0.25 mile boundary. Alternative 4 would contain all the elements of the No Action Alternative as well as a VERP user capacity component, quotas for each river management zone, and an annual maximum visitation quota. The El Portal segment boundary would be drawn according to the location of outstandingly remarkable values. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would protect and enhance natural resources associated with the river, protect and restore natural hydrological and geomorphic processes, protect and enhance cultural resources, provide diverse recreational and educational experiences, and provide for appropriate land uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plans that do not involve removal of man-made structures would continue all such structures to detract from the wild and scenic nature of the river corridor. Alternatives emphasizing the wild and scenic nature of the river over visitor access would decrease the recreational value of the river for visitors seeking more developed forms of recreation. LEGAL MANDATES: California Wilderness Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-425), El Portal Administrative Site Authorization Act (72 Stat. 1771), Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-363), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0173D, Volume 24, Number 2 and 00-0460F, Volume, 24, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050008, 915 pages and maps, January 6, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Land Use KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Merced River KW - Yosemite National Park KW - California Wilderness Act of 1984, Compliance KW - El Portal Administrative Site Authorization Act, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Omnibus Appropriations Act, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16346470?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+REVISED+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2000.%29&rft.title=MERCED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+REVISED+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+2000.%29&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: January 6, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, VERNAL FIELD OFFICE, VERNAL, UTAH. AN - 36438146; 11344 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general land and resources management plan for the area 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 resource management plans into a single new plan to be known as the Vernal Field Office Resource Management Plan. 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 area includes 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 management plans 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), are considered in this draft EIS. 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. 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. 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: 050005, 934 pages and maps, January 5, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests 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 - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36438146?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-05&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 5, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ELWHA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, CLALLAM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36417646; 11623 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of the native anadromous fisheries and ecosystem of the Elwha River, located in northwestern Washington, is proposed. Much of the 45-mile-long river flows through the Olympic National Park. In the early 1900s, the free-flowing Elwha River was blocked by two hydroelectric dams. In 1912, the Elwha Dam was built 4.9 miles from the mouth of the river, creating Lake Aldwell. In 1926, the Glines Canyon dam was built 8.5 miles further upstream, creating Lake Mills. The presence and operation of the dams blocked the migration path for several species of salmon and trout, which, after maturing in the ocean, return to Elwha to spawn, and the dams prevent the downstream flow of nutrients, sediment, and woody debris needed by the fish to spawn and rear juveniles. The fish were also important to the diet, culture, and economy of a local Indian tribe, the Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve the retention of the dams, were considered in the draft EIS of April 1996. The proposed action (the River Erosion Alternative) would involve fully restoring the river ecosystem and its fisheries by removing both dams over an 18- to 24-month period and implementing fish restoration, including a tribal hatchery, and revegetation. Elwha Dam would be removed by blasting, and Glines Canyon Dam by a combination of blasting and diamond-wire saw cutting. Lake Aldwell would be drained by a diversion channel, and Lake Mills by notching down Glines Canyon Dam. Stored sediment would be eroded naturally by the Elwha River. The Dredge and Slurry Alternative would involve the use of suction dredges to remove fine-grained sediment prior to dam removal. The estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $113.1 million. The final EIS of November 1996, which was issued in an abbreviated format, contains corrections and revisions to the draft EIS as well as public comments and agency responses. This final supplement to the final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a slightly modified proposed action. This final supplement also updates cost information, describes the selected plan for the mitigation of damage to trumpeter swan habitat, and proposes crushing and recycling concrete removed from the dams rather than transporting it to a land disposal site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the project would fully restore the Elwha River ecosystem, return the cultural and economic focus of the Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe, and promote the federal trust responsibility to affected Indian tribes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The deactivation of the dams would result in the loss of 18.7 megawatts of hydroelectric power now produced at these two sites. If sediment were allowed to erode naturally, the finer-grained particles, like silt and clay, could adversely affect fish or other aquatic organisms. Flood risks would increase following dam removal. LEGAL MANDATES: Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-495). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 05-0441D, Volume 29, Number 3. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 96-0156D, Volume 20, Number 2, and 96-0591F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050352, 283 pages, January 5, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Hazards KW - Fish Hatcheries KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Minorities KW - Preserves KW - Reservoirs KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Subsistence KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Elwha River KW - Olympic National Park KW - Washington KW - Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36417646?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ELWHA+RIVER+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+IMPLEMENTATION%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CLALLAM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ELWHA+RIVER+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+IMPLEMENTATION%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CLALLAM+COUNTY%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 5, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, VERNAL FIELD OFFICE, VERNAL, UTAH. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, VERNAL FIELD OFFICE, VERNAL, UTAH. AN - 36369265; 050340D-050005_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general land and resources management plan for the area 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 resource management plans into a single new plan to be known as the Vernal Field Office Resource Management Plan. 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 area includes 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 management plans 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), are considered in this draft EIS. 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. 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. 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: 050005, 934 pages and maps, January 5, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests 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 - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369265?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-05&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 5, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER DESCHUTES RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, JEFFERSON, KLAMATH, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - UPPER DESCHUTES RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, JEFFERSON, KLAMATH, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 36369191; 050342F-050010_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the Brothers/La Pine and the Two Rivers resource management plans to address resources in the 404,000-acre Upper Deschutes Resource Management Area of Jefferson, Klamath, Deschutes, and Crook counties, Oregon is proposed. Most of the area under consideration lies within Deschutes County (57 percent) and Crook County (36 percent). Key issues identified during scoping include those related to ecosystem health, land uses, recreation resources, transportation and utility corridors, land ownership, public health and safety, archaeological resources, and socioeconomic values. Seven 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 7) would combine features of all other alternatives, placing an emphasis on wildlife habitat enhancement in the southeast or rural portion of the planning area, but also permitting year-round motorized use in much of that area. The alternative would focus on the separation of recreational uses over shared uses and the distribution of recreation areas relatively equally across the planning area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would build on areas of consensus established during the planning period and reflect a balance of uses that would meet the needs of local communities as well as national mandates for management of public lands. The plan would provide a mix of management emphases that provide for the needs related to the individual identities and social and economic values of local communities. The long-term military training needs of the Oregon National Guard would also be met, and management of livestock grazing would occur via a flexible framework that responds to conflicts and demands. Mineral resources development would be accommodated as appropriate. Recreational opportunities would be provided for both motorized and mono-motorized recreationists. Wildlife and recreation management objectives would be fully integrated. Scientific approaches to ecosystem management would be adopted, and an aggressive approach to the management of hazardous fuels in the urban interface would be implemented. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management activities and road construction would result in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and disturbance of soils, increasing sediment loads in receiving surface flows in the short-term. Conflicts between recreationists and exploitative resource users would continue in some 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 04-0148D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050010, Volume 1--378 pages, Volume 2-568 pages, Volume 3--246 pages, Map Supplement, January 5, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-03/047+1792 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Fire Prevention KW - Forests KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Safety KW - Transmission Lines KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Oregon KW - Upper Deschutes 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/36369191?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+DESCHUTES+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+KLAMATH%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=UPPER+DESCHUTES+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+KLAMATH%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Prineville, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 5, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ELWHA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, CLALLAM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - ELWHA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, CLALLAM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36368948; 050441D-050002_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of the native anadromous fisheries and ecosystem of the Elwha River, located in northwestern Washington, is proposed. Much of the 45-mile-long river flows through the Olympic National Park. In the early 1900s the free-flowing Elwha River was blocked by two hydroelectric dams. In 1912, the Elwha Dam was built 4.9 miles from the mouth of the river, creating Lake Aldwell. In 1926, the Glines Canyon dam was built 8.5 miles further upstream, creating Lake Mills. The presence and operation of the dams blocked the migration path for several species of salmon and trout, which, after maturing in the ocean, return to Elwha to spawn, and the dams prevent the downstream flow of nutrients, sediment, and woody debris needed by the fish to spawn and rear juveniles. The fish were also important to the diet, culture, and economy of a local Indian tribe, the Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve the retention of the dams, were considered in the draft EIS of April 1996. The proposed action (the River Erosion Alternative) would involve fully restoring the river ecosystem and its fisheries by removing both dams over an 18- to 24-month period and implementing fish restoration, including a tribal hatchery, and re-vegetation. Elwha Dam would be removed by blasting, and Glines Canyon Dam by a combination of blasting and diamond-wire saw cutting. Lake Aldwell would be drained by a diversion channel, and Lake Mills by notching down Glines Canyon Dam. Stored sediment would be eroded naturally by the Elwha River. The Dredge and Slurry Alternative would involve the use of suction dredges to remove fine-grained sediment prior to dam removal. The estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $113.1 million. The final EIS, which was issued in an abbreviated format, contains corrections and revisions to the draft EIS as well as public comments and agency responses. This draft supplement considers a No Action Alternative and a slightly modified proposed action. This draft supplement also updates cost information, describes the selected plan for the mitigation of damage to trumpeter swan habitat, and proposes crushing and recycling concrete removed from the dams rather than transporting it to a land disposal site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the project would fully restore the Elwha River ecosystem, return the cultural and economic focus of the Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe, and promote the federal trust responsibility to affected Indian tribes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The deactivation of the dams would result in the loss of 18.7 megawatts of hydroelectric power now produced at these two sites. If sediment were allowed to erode naturally, the finer-grained particles, like silt and clay, could adversely affect fish or other aquatic organisms. Flood risks would increase following dam removal. LEGAL MANDATES: Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-495). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 96-0156D, Volume 20, Number 2, and 96-0591F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050002, 283 pages, January 5, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Hazards KW - Fish Hatcheries KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Minorities KW - Preserves KW - Reservoirs KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Subsistence KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Elwha River KW - Olympic National Park KW - Washington KW - Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ELWHA+RIVER+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+IMPLEMENTATION%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CLALLAM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ELWHA+RIVER+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+IMPLEMENTATION%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CLALLAM+COUNTY%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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 5, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER DESCHUTES RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, JEFFERSON, KLAMATH, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - UPPER DESCHUTES RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, JEFFERSON, KLAMATH, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 36367193; 050342F-050010_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the Brothers/La Pine and the Two Rivers resource management plans to address resources in the 404,000-acre Upper Deschutes Resource Management Area of Jefferson, Klamath, Deschutes, and Crook counties, Oregon is proposed. Most of the area under consideration lies within Deschutes County (57 percent) and Crook County (36 percent). Key issues identified during scoping include those related to ecosystem health, land uses, recreation resources, transportation and utility corridors, land ownership, public health and safety, archaeological resources, and socioeconomic values. Seven 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 7) would combine features of all other alternatives, placing an emphasis on wildlife habitat enhancement in the southeast or rural portion of the planning area, but also permitting year-round motorized use in much of that area. The alternative would focus on the separation of recreational uses over shared uses and the distribution of recreation areas relatively equally across the planning area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would build on areas of consensus established during the planning period and reflect a balance of uses that would meet the needs of local communities as well as national mandates for management of public lands. The plan would provide a mix of management emphases that provide for the needs related to the individual identities and social and economic values of local communities. The long-term military training needs of the Oregon National Guard would also be met, and management of livestock grazing would occur via a flexible framework that responds to conflicts and demands. Mineral resources development would be accommodated as appropriate. Recreational opportunities would be provided for both motorized and mono-motorized recreationists. Wildlife and recreation management objectives would be fully integrated. Scientific approaches to ecosystem management would be adopted, and an aggressive approach to the management of hazardous fuels in the urban interface would be implemented. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management activities and road construction would result in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and disturbance of soils, increasing sediment loads in receiving surface flows in the short-term. Conflicts between recreationists and exploitative resource users would continue in some 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 04-0148D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050010, Volume 1--378 pages, Volume 2-568 pages, Volume 3--246 pages, Map Supplement, January 5, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-03/047+1792 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Fire Prevention KW - Forests KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Safety KW - Transmission Lines KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Oregon KW - Upper Deschutes 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/36367193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+DESCHUTES+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+KLAMATH%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=UPPER+DESCHUTES+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+KLAMATH%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Prineville, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 5, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER DESCHUTES RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, JEFFERSON, KLAMATH, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - UPPER DESCHUTES RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, JEFFERSON, KLAMATH, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 36367126; 050342F-050010_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the Brothers/La Pine and the Two Rivers resource management plans to address resources in the 404,000-acre Upper Deschutes Resource Management Area of Jefferson, Klamath, Deschutes, and Crook counties, Oregon is proposed. Most of the area under consideration lies within Deschutes County (57 percent) and Crook County (36 percent). Key issues identified during scoping include those related to ecosystem health, land uses, recreation resources, transportation and utility corridors, land ownership, public health and safety, archaeological resources, and socioeconomic values. Seven 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 7) would combine features of all other alternatives, placing an emphasis on wildlife habitat enhancement in the southeast or rural portion of the planning area, but also permitting year-round motorized use in much of that area. The alternative would focus on the separation of recreational uses over shared uses and the distribution of recreation areas relatively equally across the planning area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would build on areas of consensus established during the planning period and reflect a balance of uses that would meet the needs of local communities as well as national mandates for management of public lands. The plan would provide a mix of management emphases that provide for the needs related to the individual identities and social and economic values of local communities. The long-term military training needs of the Oregon National Guard would also be met, and management of livestock grazing would occur via a flexible framework that responds to conflicts and demands. Mineral resources development would be accommodated as appropriate. Recreational opportunities would be provided for both motorized and mono-motorized recreationists. Wildlife and recreation management objectives would be fully integrated. Scientific approaches to ecosystem management would be adopted, and an aggressive approach to the management of hazardous fuels in the urban interface would be implemented. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management activities and road construction would result in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and disturbance of soils, increasing sediment loads in receiving surface flows in the short-term. Conflicts between recreationists and exploitative resource users would continue in some 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 04-0148D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050010, Volume 1--378 pages, Volume 2-568 pages, Volume 3--246 pages, Map Supplement, January 5, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-03/047+1792 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Fire Prevention KW - Forests KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Safety KW - Transmission Lines KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Oregon KW - Upper Deschutes 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/36367126?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+DESCHUTES+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+KLAMATH%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=UPPER+DESCHUTES+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+KLAMATH%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Prineville, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 5, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER DESCHUTES RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, JEFFERSON, KLAMATH, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 16357909; 11349 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the Brothers/La Pine and the Two Rivers resource management plans to address resources in the 404,000-acre Upper Deschutes Resource Management Area of Jefferson, Klamath, Deschutes, and Crook counties, Oregon is proposed. Most of the area under consideration lies within Deschutes County (57 percent) and Crook County (36 percent). Key issues identified during scoping include those related to ecosystem health, land uses, recreation resources, transportation and utility corridors, land ownership, public health and safety, archaeological resources, and socioeconomic values. Seven 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 7) would combine features of all other alternatives, placing an emphasis on wildlife habitat enhancement in the southeast or rural portion of the planning area, but also permitting year-round motorized use in much of that area. The alternative would focus on the separation of recreational uses over shared uses and the distribution of recreation areas relatively equally across the planning area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would build on areas of consensus established during the planning period and reflect a balance of uses that would meet the needs of local communities as well as national mandates for management of public lands. The plan would provide a mix of management emphases that provide for the needs related to the individual identities and social and economic values of local communities. The long-term military training needs of the Oregon National Guard would also be met, and management of livestock grazing would occur via a flexible framework that responds to conflicts and demands. Mineral resources development would be accommodated as appropriate. Recreational opportunities would be provided for both motorized and mono-motorized recreationists. Wildlife and recreation management objectives would be fully integrated. Scientific approaches to ecosystem management would be adopted, and an aggressive approach to the management of hazardous fuels in the urban interface would be implemented. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management activities and road construction would result in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and disturbance of soils, increasing sediment loads in receiving surface flows in the short-term. Conflicts between recreationists and exploitative resource users would continue in some 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 04-0148D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050010, Volume 1--378 pages, Volume 2-568 pages, Volume 3--246 pages, Map Supplement, January 5, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/OR/WA/PL-03/047+1792 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Fire Prevention KW - Forests KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Safety KW - Transmission Lines KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Oregon KW - Upper Deschutes 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/16357909?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+DESCHUTES+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+KLAMATH%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=UPPER+DESCHUTES+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+KLAMATH%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Prineville, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 5, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ELWHA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, CLALLAM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 16343116; 11341 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of the native anadromous fisheries and ecosystem of the Elwha River, located in northwestern Washington, is proposed. Much of the 45-mile-long river flows through the Olympic National Park. In the early 1900s the free-flowing Elwha River was blocked by two hydroelectric dams. In 1912, the Elwha Dam was built 4.9 miles from the mouth of the river, creating Lake Aldwell. In 1926, the Glines Canyon dam was built 8.5 miles further upstream, creating Lake Mills. The presence and operation of the dams blocked the migration path for several species of salmon and trout, which, after maturing in the ocean, return to Elwha to spawn, and the dams prevent the downstream flow of nutrients, sediment, and woody debris needed by the fish to spawn and rear juveniles. The fish were also important to the diet, culture, and economy of a local Indian tribe, the Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve the retention of the dams, were considered in the draft EIS of April 1996. The proposed action (the River Erosion Alternative) would involve fully restoring the river ecosystem and its fisheries by removing both dams over an 18- to 24-month period and implementing fish restoration, including a tribal hatchery, and re-vegetation. Elwha Dam would be removed by blasting, and Glines Canyon Dam by a combination of blasting and diamond-wire saw cutting. Lake Aldwell would be drained by a diversion channel, and Lake Mills by notching down Glines Canyon Dam. Stored sediment would be eroded naturally by the Elwha River. The Dredge and Slurry Alternative would involve the use of suction dredges to remove fine-grained sediment prior to dam removal. The estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $113.1 million. The final EIS, which was issued in an abbreviated format, contains corrections and revisions to the draft EIS as well as public comments and agency responses. This draft supplement considers a No Action Alternative and a slightly modified proposed action. This draft supplement also updates cost information, describes the selected plan for the mitigation of damage to trumpeter swan habitat, and proposes crushing and recycling concrete removed from the dams rather than transporting it to a land disposal site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the project would fully restore the Elwha River ecosystem, return the cultural and economic focus of the Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe, and promote the federal trust responsibility to affected Indian tribes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The deactivation of the dams would result in the loss of 18.7 megawatts of hydroelectric power now produced at these two sites. If sediment were allowed to erode naturally, the finer-grained particles, like silt and clay, could adversely affect fish or other aquatic organisms. Flood risks would increase following dam removal. LEGAL MANDATES: Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-495). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 96-0156D, Volume 20, Number 2, and 96-0591F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050002, 283 pages, January 5, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Hazards KW - Fish Hatcheries KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Minorities KW - Preserves KW - Reservoirs KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Subsistence KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Elwha River KW - Olympic National Park KW - Washington KW - Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16343116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ELWHA+RIVER+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+IMPLEMENTATION%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CLALLAM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ELWHA+RIVER+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+IMPLEMENTATION%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CLALLAM+COUNTY%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 5, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Science.gov: FirstGov for science AN - 57609900; 394565 AB - Book review abstract. For further information visit www.science.gov. Reviewed by Brian B. Carpenter. JF - Reference Reviews AU - United States Geological Survey AD - United States Geological Survey Y1 - 2005///0, PY - 2005 DA - 0, 2005 SP - 38 EP - 39 VL - 19 IS - 3 SN - 0950-4125, 0950-4125 KW - Book review abstracts KW - Sciencegov: FirstGov for science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/57609900?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%3Alisa&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Reference+Reviews&rft.atitle=Science.gov%3A+FirstGov+for+science&rft.au=United+States+Geological+Survey&rft.aulast=United+States+Geological+Survey&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=38&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Reference+Reviews&rft.issn=09504125&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - Library & Information Science Abstracts (LISA) N1 - Date revised - 2005-12-05 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Book review abstracts; Sciencegov: FirstGov for science ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska; Final; Amendment to the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement AN - 51732531; 2005-026468 JF - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska; Final; Amendment to the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement Y1 - 2005/01// PY - 2005 DA - January 2005 VL - BLM/AK/PL-05/006+1610+930 KW - United States KW - petroleum exploration KW - North Slope KW - impact statements KW - petroleum KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - environmental analysis KW - environmental management KW - reserves KW - conservation KW - Northern Alaska KW - land management KW - report KW - ecology 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/51732531?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=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve%2C+Alaska%3B+Final%3B+Amendment+to+the+Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement&rft.title=Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve%2C+Alaska%3B+Final%3B+Amendment+to+the+Northeast+National+Petroleum+Reserve+integrated+activity+plan%2Fenvironmental+impact+statement&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 1155 N1 - Availability - U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK, United States N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 21 tables, sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - In 3 volumes; includes 11 appendices; final report; accessed April 7, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-09-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36442930; 11710 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of approximately 127 miles of US 6 from Interstate 15 (I-15) in Spanish Fork to I-70 near Green River in Utah, Wasatch, Carbon, and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. US 6 constitutes a part of the national highway system and operates as a major east-west highway serving an important statewide transportation function by linking two major interstates, I-15 and I-70. US 6 is an important link between the rural communities of central and southeastern Utah and the populous Wasatch Front. Segments of US were constructed over 60 years ago and do not meet current safety design requirements. The increased travel demand on US 6 due to population growth along the Wasatch Front has resulted in a decreased level of service that does not meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials guidance for a highway of this class. Design flaws and increased traffic volumes have resulted in unacceptable accident and fatality rates for a roadway of this type. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2004. The Passing Lane Alternative would add passing lanes at selected locations along the corridor. This alternative would provide four-lane sections in areas on both sides of the highway where passing is required. The Four Lane Alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction through the entire corridor. Under either action alternative, existing substandard design elements would be upgraded to current design standards and median barriers or other median treatments would be added as appropriate. The Peerless port of entry would e relocated to improve safety as a component of either action alternative. Costs of the Passing Lane and Four Lane alternatives are estimated at $595.8 million and $678.4 million, respectively. The draft supplement of January 2005 to the draft EIS addresses the Four Lane Alternative, as well as impacts to air quality, water quality, wetlands, and mitigation measures. This final EIS continues to propose widening of US 6 from I-15 to I-70 via one of the two aforementioned action alternatives, while considering a No Action Alternative for comparison purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the highway to allow it to meet current design standards while reducing both the overall accident and fatality rates. The proposed action would also reduce overall congestion, generally improve the level of service, and maintain the highway as a key component of Utah's transportation network. Either action alternative would improve the level of service to C or better. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Passing Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7,7 acres of wetlands, 1,779 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. Travel times under this alternative would be greater than under the Four Lane Alternative, increasing user costs, and a few segments of the highway would provide an unacceptable level of service. The Four-Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7.7 acres {4-41} of wetlands, 2,153 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. This alternative would increase impervious surface within the corridor significantly more than the Passing Lane Alternative. Either alternative would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at 96 sensitive receptor sites. Either alternative would affect the federally protected Ute ladies'-tresses, clay phacelia, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker, as well as two state-listed bird species; 10 significant historical, three significant archaeological, eight significant architectural, and one significant paleontological sites; disturb 11 potential hazardous waste 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.), 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 05-0228D, Volume 29, Number 2 and 05-0418D, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050412, 573 pages and maps, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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, 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/36442930?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANAGING WATER IN THE WEST, HUMBOLDT PROJECT CONVEYANCE, PERSHING, CHURCHILL, AND LANDER COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 36440217; 11769 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of 83,530 acres of lands associated with the Humboldt Project to the Pershing County Water Conveyance District (PCWCD), Pershing, Churchill, and Lander Counties and the state of Nevada. is proposed. The project, which is located in north-central Nevada, is a water storage reservoir owned and administered by the Bureau of Reclamation. The project includes 32,650 acres known as the Humboldt Sink, 20,800 acres within and adjacent to the Rye Patch Reservoir, and 30,000 acres of pasture land known as the Community Patch. Rights to the approximately acreage conveyed would include title and interest in the land, including all water rights for storage and diversion. Lands withdrawn by the Bureau of Reclamation within the Humboldt Sink would transfer to the state of Nevada and Pershing County. In accordance with the Humboldt Conveyance Act and related agreements, the state would receive title to 31,660 acres of withdrawn land in the Humboldt Sink; the Nevada Department of Wildlife would continue to operate and maintain these lands as part of the Humboldt Wildlife Management Area. Pershing County would receive 990 acres of land for future expansion of the Derby Airfield. All lands acquired in the Rye Patch Reservoir area would be conveyed to the PCWCD. All withdrawn lands below the reservoir high water mark would transfer the PCWCD. All withdrawn lands above the high water mark would be conveyed to the state. The state would continue to operate and maintain the recreation facilities at the Rye Patch State Recreation Area. The PCWCD would maintain a minimum operational pool of 3,000 acre-feet of storage. Lands within the Battle Mountain Community Pasture would be transferred to PCWCD, Lander County, and the state. PCWCD would receive title to 22,500 acres within the Community Pasture and would continue its management and operation as a livestock pasture. The state would receive title to 5,850 acres within the Community Pasture for the purpose of creating a wetland. The state would assume responsibility for operation and maintenance of Slaven Diversion Dam near the east end of the Community Pasture in conjunction with other beneficial uses of the facility when it was needed to divert water to the newly developed wetland. In addition, Lander County would receive title to 1,100 acres of Community Pasture lands or industrial development, county fairgrounds, and a primitive park and access easements along the Humboldt River. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the Humboldt Project lands would not be conveyed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: PCWCD would increase its irrigation water supply base. The state would use the land it received to increase and enhance wildlife habitat in the area and improve recreational opportunities. Wetland acreage in the area would increase significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased public access along the Humboldt River in the Battle Mountain area could result in bank erosion or sedimentation of the river. Federally listed species in the conveyed areas would no longer benefit from protection under the Endangered Species Act. Similarly, dam safety and cultural resource protection would pass out of federal authority. Airfield expansion, industrial development, and recreational area development would displace vegetation. the industrial development would be located just north of lands owned by the Battle Mountain Band of the Te-Moak Tribe. Continued livestock grazing would continue competition between wildlife and cattle for forage. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act for FY 2004 (P.L. 108-357) and Humboldt Project Conveyance Act (P.L. 107-282). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0446D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050420, 292 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-29 KW - Airports KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Industrial Districts KW - Irrigation KW - Livestock KW - Property Disposition KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Vegetation KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Humboldt River KW - Nevada KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act for FY 2004, Project Authorization KW - Humboldt Project Conveyance Act, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36440217?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANAGING+WATER+IN+THE+WEST%2C+HUMBOLDT+PROJECT+CONVEYANCE%2C+PERSHING%2C+CHURCHILL%2C+AND+LANDER+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=MANAGING+WATER+IN+THE+WEST%2C+HUMBOLDT+PROJECT+CONVEYANCE%2C+PERSHING%2C+CHURCHILL%2C+AND+LANDER+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE INTEGRATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, IDAHO. AN - 36439715; 11704 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a programmatic integrated resource management plan is proposed for the Cour d'Alane Tribe's reservation in the Coeur d'Alene Basin of the western Rocky Mountains in Idaho. The management plan would establish 100-year desired future conditions and 20-year management goals for land use, natural resource enhancement and protection, residential and commercial development, and cultural preservation. More specifically, the long-term desired conditions and short-term goals address subsistence activities; the rural character of the reservation; maintenance and restoration of wetlands, riparian areas, streams, and forested land; limitation of subdivision of property in all management areas excepting areas designated for such development; provision of a land use plan, with provisions for shoreline management, for the reservation; provision of open space plans for reservation watersheds; and implementation of principles of conservation zoning to require conservation of open space identified in the plans when property was development. The plan would provide measures addressing development of commercial, industrial, residential, recreational, and administrative facilities. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing ad hoc management approach, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would implement the integrated resource management plan outlined above. Land use allocations would designate of 11,136 acres for development, 76,149 acres of conservation set asides, 51,123 acres for rural uses, 92,565 acres for agricultural development, and 95,558 acres for forest uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The current rural condition of the reservation of the reservation would be preserved over the long-term. The natural, cultural, and economic needs of the Tribe would be protected and enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development activities would result in some habitat loss and fragmentation and declines in native species. The alteration of resource conditions could affect subsistence activities and other culturally significant values of Tribe members. Riparian habitat, wetlands, and shoreline areas would be degraded and displaced. JF - EPA number: 050397, Summary--54 pages, Draft EIS--415 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Land Use KW - Agriculture KW - Commercial Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Housing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Industrial Districts KW - Land Management KW - Open Space KW - Shores KW - Streams KW - Subsistence KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36439715?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COEUR+D%27ALENE+TRIBE+INTEGRATED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=COEUR+D%27ALENE+TRIBE+INTEGRATED+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 Indian Affairs, Plummer, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HOOVER CREEK STREAM MANAGEMENT PLAN, HERBERT HOOVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, IOWA. AN - 36438563; 11749 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a stream management plan for the Hoover Creek corridor of the Herbert Hoover National Historic Site of West Branch, Iowa is proposed. The plan, which would primarily provide flood control benefits, lies 10 miles east of Iowa City within the 187-acre Hoover Historic Site; the site commemorates the life of the 31st President of the United States. The tributary of concern, which runs through the park and has no official name but is known as "Hoover Creek", forms within the park as two small tributaries entering from the north and west, where it flows to the east through the heart of the park and exits the park upstream of its confluence with the west branch of Wapsinonoc Creek. Many of the historic resources within the historic site lie within the 50-, 25-, and 15-year floodplains of Hoover Creek and the west branch of Wapsinonoc Creek. Although the park has developed a flood response plan and fitted many of the structures with protective measures, these measures, these measures would not adequately prevent damage from floods exceeding a two-year storm event. Hoover Creek also serves as the primary drainage for portions of the city of West Branch, where development has altered the hydrologic regime. Changes in flow characteristics have adversely affected stream health and function as well as changes in the physical appearance of Herbert Hoover's childhood home. Five 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 E) would provide protection against the flood resulting from a 50-year storm event. A storm water detention basin would be excavated, providing a storage capacity of 138 acre-feet, increasing the natural capacity of the creek by 101 acre-feet. In addition, the plan would provide for a 1,050-cubic=foot=per=second channel configuration for a distance of 1,200 linear feet, a grade control structure, replacement of dense vegetation with low-profile plant cover, and rehabilitation of a historic wall upstream of the Downey Street Bridge. Flood protection would be achieved through controlled flow release from the detention basin and installation of waterproof door shields to protect the Visitor Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing protection to the Hoover Site and its historic resources, the stream management plan would improve stream functions, including drainage for the city of West Branch. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The detention basin would displace 17 acres of land and alter stream hydrology, though the loss of soils and vegetation would be minor compared to the flood protection provided to the remaining habitat and most of the hydrological impacts would be beneficial. 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: 050390, 238 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-47 KW - Creeks KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Water Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Herbert Hoover National Historic Site KW - Iowa 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/36438563?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HOOVER+CREEK+STREAM+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HERBERT+HOOVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+IOWA.&rft.title=HOOVER+CREEK+STREAM+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HERBERT+HOOVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+IOWA.&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: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36438352; 11741 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan to addresses recreational uses of the 277-mile section of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. For the purposes of the planning effort, the river has been divided into two geographic sections, with a specific set of alternatives for each section. For the upper section, extending from Lees Ferry at River Mile (RM) 0 to Diamond Creek at RM 226, this final EIS considers eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). The upper section alternatives represent different mixes and limits of group size, trip length, launches per day, user-days, seasonal variations, motorized and non-motorized use, commercial and noncommercial use, and other factors. Major issues addressed by the alternatives include those related to the appropriate level of visitor use consistent with natural and cultural resource protection and visitor experience goals; allocation of use between commercial and noncommercial groups; the noncommercial permit system; the level of motorized and non-motorized boat use; the range of services provided to the public; the use of helicopters to transport river passengers to and from the river; and appropriate levels and types of upstream travel from Lake Mead. The preferred alternative (Alternative H, Modified) provides for a mix of motorized and non-motorized use, a six-month non-motorized use season, more evenly distributed launch patterns, and changes to allocation and permit systems. For the lower section, extending from Diamond Creek to Lake Mead at RM 227, the EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). The park shares a common boundary with the Hualapai Tribe along 108 miles of the river, and the Tribe is a cooperating agency in the preparation of this final EIS, which includes an alternative identified as preferred by the Tribe. Major differences distinguishing lower section alternatives include limits on commercial launches from Diamond Creek, pontoon boat operations in the Quartermaster area, and facilities and upriver travel from Lake Mead. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4, Modified) is the same as the Hualapai Tribe's preferred alternative (Alternative 5) except for the lower than current averages of pontoon boat operations and the allowance of upriver travel to Separation Canyon at full lake levels. Alternative 5 would have much higher than current levels of pontoon boat operations and would restrict upriver travel to below RM 273. Both lower section alternatives would reduce current commercial group sized and allow more overnight use in the section extending from Diamond Creek to Quartermaster. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternatives would provide for appropriately controlled access to the river within Grand Canyon National Park, providing extensive recreational opportunities in a variety of water-related environments while protecting natural resources, particularly wilderness values, associated with the Grand Canyon. Expanded use of the corridor would enhance the local economies along the affected section of the river. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Motorized and non-motorized users of the river would occasionally come into conflict. Increased visitation would place additional stress on natural and cultural resources as well as park management and operations resources. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978 (I6 U.S.C. 1a-1) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0190D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050470, Volume 1--275 pages, Volume 2--652 pages, Volume 3--427 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Lakes KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wilderness KW - Arizona KW - Colorado River KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Lake Mead KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36438352?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEATH VALLEY NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA: RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FURNACE CREEK WATER COLLECTION SYSTEM. AN - 36438075; 11714 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 adit at Texas Springs, and a tunnel for water collection constructed similar to a mine adit 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 nonpotable purposes. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would rebuild the outdated water collection All three action alternatives would separate the potable and nonpotable water system in the project area and provide nonpotable 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 nonpotable 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 Springs, 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, archaeological, 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.). JF - EPA number: 050424, 523 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests 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/36438075?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEATH+VALLEY+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RECONSTRUCTION+OF+THE+FURNACE+CREEK+WATER+COLLECTION+SYSTEM.&rft.title=DEATH+VALLEY+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RECONSTRUCTION+OF+THE+FURNACE+CREEK+WATER+COLLECTION+SYSTEM.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SLOAN CANYON NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36437417; 11751 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a land and resource management plan for the 48,438-acre Sloan Canyon national Conservation Area (NCA) in Clark County, Nevada is proposed. In November 2002, Congress designated the Sloan Canyon NCA to preserve and protect a portion of southern Nevada's Mojave Desert as a permanent asset for future generations. The NCA forms the southern skyline of the city of Henderson and Las Vegas and contains important cultural and archaeological resources. The centerpiece of the NCA is the Sloan Canyon Petroglph Site, one of the most significant cultural resources in southern Nevada use of the NCA will be likely to change dramatically in coming years due o its proximity to urban and suburban development, requiring that management guidelines be developed to respond to visitor needs and protect the NCA's valuable resources. The designation of the North McCullough Wilderness Area requires that approximately 14,763 acres within the NCA be preserved and protected in their natural, primitive state. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C), known as the moderate development use alternative, would focus on a moderate increase development while maintaining the natural characteristics of the NCA. Recreational opportunities, such as mountain biking, equestrian use, and dispersed camping, would be provided, and users would be required to remain on designated trails in certain areas. The Sloan Canyon Petroglph Site would be accessed mainly from a multi-purpose visitor center at the north end of Sloan Canyon, and guided tours would be required during high use periods. Most existing roads and trails in the NCA would be closed to the public for motorized use. A multipurpose recreation/education visitor center would be provided at the north end of Sloan Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would protect the Sloan Canyon Petroglyph, underscoring its importance to Native Americans; provide education on the importance of preserving and protecting and area's cultural, natural, and wilderness values; provide information and education on the Sloan Canyon NCA's resources in a creative manner; and provide recreational opportunities that would be compatible with and protect the various elements of the natural landscape. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the visitor center and other facilities would disturb soils and displace vegetation and the associated desert habitat. The location of the center would change use patterns and consolidate visitation in that area, concentrating most of the visitor-related damage there. Elimination of public motorized access in most areas would restrict visitation for some. LEGAL MANDATES: Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Sloan County National Conservation Area Act of 2002. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0512D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050392, 578 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-26 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Wilderness KW - Nevada KW - Sloan County National Conservation Area KW - Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Sloan County National Conservation Area Act of 2002, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36437417?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SLOAN+CANYON+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SLOAN+CANYON+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MENOMINEE CASINO-HOTEL, 223-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, WISCONSIN. AN - 36435350; 11701 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of a 223-acre parcel in Menosha, Wisconsin into federal trust and approval of a gaming management contract for a tribal casino-hotel development at the transferred site are proposed. The probably would be taken into federal trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, while the National Indian Gaming Commission would approve the contract with the applicant, the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin. The result would be the construction and operation of a casino-hotel complex at the transferred site. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative A) would provide for the abovementioned transfer of land and establishment of the Commission-Tribe contract, allowing the development of the casino-hotel complex, while maintaining an existing greyhound racetrack, structure, concourse, and kennel facilities. Regional access to the complex would continue to be provided by Interstate 94, while 60th Street would provide emergency access. Other action alternatives include an alternative site, a reduced development intensity alternative, and the development of a complex including a hotel and conference center, supported by recreational facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The two proposed actions would allow the Tribe to develop an enterprise that would generate substantial net economic revenues, in turn, improving the long-term economic conditions of the Tribe and its members. Revenues generated by the economic development would be used to support social and educational programs for Tribe members. In addition to promoting economic development, the self-governance capacity of the Tribe would be enhanced through the development of tribal land. The non-Indian population of the area would enjoy knock-on benefits, particularly in the area of health status improvements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Casino and hotel development would result in the destruction of vegetation and disturbance of soils and associated wildlife habitat. New competition would affect other tribal gaming operations in the region, particularly the Forrest County Potawatomi casino in Milwaukee. Local and regional traffic levels would increase significantly, with no new expansion of transportation facilities proposed. Local and regional air quality would decline somewhat due to increase motor vehicle traffic in the area. Additional pressure would be placed on local services and infrastructure. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050382, 473 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Manufacturing KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435350?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MENOMINEE+CASINO-HOTEL%2C+223-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=MENOMINEE+CASINO-HOTEL%2C+223-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Spelling, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DELTA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, OLD RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36432979; 11735 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050462, Volume 1a--235 pages, Volume 1b--608 pages, Volume 1c--389 pages, Volume 1d--418 pages, Appendix A-I--663 pages, Appendix J-Q--519 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 05-62 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/36432979?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WILDERNESS AND BACKCOUNTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN, ISLE ROYALE NATIONAL PARK, LAKE SUPERIOR, MICHIGAN. AN - 36432297; 11719 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a wilderness and backcountry management plan for Isle Royale National Park on Lake Superior in Michigan is proposed. The park and associated wilderness is characterized by a type of scenery that is utterly distinct from anything found elsewhere in the National Park System. The park's primitiveness, unusual wildlife and interesting flora, as well as its evidence of prehistoric occupation, combine to make Isle Royale and its neighboring islands of National Park caliber. The newly proposed plan would provide guidelines for the non-developed areas of the park, including all of the management zones outlined in the park's general management plan, excluding the open water motorized zone and the developed zone, which consist of Rock Harbor, Windigo, and Mott Island Headquarters. Additionally, all visitors included in the overnight perki9tting system would be included in the planning scope; this includes all visitors staying in designated campsites, camping off-trail, staying at docks, and anchoring out. The plan would provide stipulations for the management of overnight and day use, camp fires, fire towers, and picnic tables. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The combination of preferred alternatives would include management of day tours to concentrate the majority of day visitors close to developed and front country areas of the park and minimize adverse impacts to wilderness character and other critical resources. Although the preferred alterative for overnight use would add one campsite at North Desor campground and a few rustic cabins in Rock Harbor and provide for a new backcountry office, and the preferred alternative for day use would add three to five miles of trail, no new campgrounds would be constructed other than those approved in the park's general management plan. In addition, two fire towers would be removed and campfire rings would be located only where resource conditions could tolerate the associated impacts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred management plan would preserve the park's wilderness character, natural resources, and cultural resources, while providing for the use and enjoyment of the park's wilderness and backcountry areas by current and future generations. The management document would provide accountability, consistency, and continuity for managing the park's wilderness and backcountry and the park's place in the National Park Service's wilderness management program. Existing facilities would be used more efficiently, while unnecessary facilities would be removed from the wilderness. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Firewood seekers and uncontrolled fires started accidentally by visitors would result in some long-term, cumulative loss of vegetation due to the creation of unauthorized social trails. New facilities and campground provisions and demolition and removal of some existing facilities would displace yet more vegetation and soil and the associated wildlife habitat. Removal of two fire towers would eliminate these historically significant structures, but one remaining structure would function as a record of the historical use of such structures. Additional visitation would place more pressure on natural resources and park staff within the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625), 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: 050436, 284 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-10 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Fire Control KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Isle Royale National Park KW - Great Lakes KW - Lake Superior KW - Michigan KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance KW - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36432297?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WILDERNESS+AND+BACKCOUNTRY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ISLE+ROYALE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+LAKE+SUPERIOR%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=WILDERNESS+AND+BACKCOUNTRY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ISLE+ROYALE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+LAKE+SUPERIOR%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Isle Royale National Park, Michigan; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36383250; 050131F-050412_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of approximately 127 miles of US 6 from Interstate 15 (I-15) in Spanish Fork to I-70 near Green River in Utah, Wasatch, Carbon, and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. US 6 constitutes a part of the national highway system and operates as a major east-west highway serving an important statewide transportation function by linking two major interstates, I-15 and I-70. US 6 is an important link between the rural communities of central and southeastern Utah and the populous Wasatch Front. Segments of US were constructed over 60 years ago and do not meet current safety design requirements. The increased travel demand on US 6 due to population growth along the Wasatch Front has resulted in a decreased level of service that does not meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials guidance for a highway of this class. Design flaws and increased traffic volumes have resulted in unacceptable accident and fatality rates for a roadway of this type. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2004. The Passing Lane Alternative would add passing lanes at selected locations along the corridor. This alternative would provide four-lane sections in areas on both sides of the highway where passing is required. The Four Lane Alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction through the entire corridor. Under either action alternative, existing substandard design elements would be upgraded to current design standards and median barriers or other median treatments would be added as appropriate. The Peerless port of entry would e relocated to improve safety as a component of either action alternative. Costs of the Passing Lane and Four Lane alternatives are estimated at $595.8 million and $678.4 million, respectively. The draft supplement of January 2005 to the draft EIS addresses the Four Lane Alternative, as well as impacts to air quality, water quality, wetlands, and mitigation measures. This final EIS continues to propose widening of US 6 from I-15 to I-70 via one of the two aforementioned action alternatives, while considering a No Action Alternative for comparison purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the highway to allow it to meet current design standards while reducing both the overall accident and fatality rates. The proposed action would also reduce overall congestion, generally improve the level of service, and maintain the highway as a key component of Utah's transportation network. Either action alternative would improve the level of service to C or better. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Passing Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7,7 acres of wetlands, 1,779 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. Travel times under this alternative would be greater than under the Four Lane Alternative, increasing user costs, and a few segments of the highway would provide an unacceptable level of service. The Four-Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7.7 acres {4-41} of wetlands, 2,153 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. This alternative would increase impervious surface within the corridor significantly more than the Passing Lane Alternative. Either alternative would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at 96 sensitive receptor sites. Either alternative would affect the federally protected Ute ladies'-tresses, clay phacelia, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker, as well as two state-listed bird species; 10 significant historical, three significant archaeological, eight significant architectural, and one significant paleontological sites; disturb 11 potential hazardous waste 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.), 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 05-0228D, Volume 29, Number 2 and 05-0418D, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050412, 573 pages and maps, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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, 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/36383250?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DELTA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, OLD RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - SOUTH DELTA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, OLD RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36383084; 050172D-050462_0001 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050462, Volume 1a--235 pages, Volume 1b--608 pages, Volume 1c--389 pages, Volume 1d--418 pages, Appendix A-I--663 pages, Appendix J-Q--519 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 05-62 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/36383084?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WILDERNESS AND BACKCOUNTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN, ISLE ROYALE NATIONAL PARK, LAKE SUPERIOR, MICHIGAN. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - WILDERNESS AND BACKCOUNTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN, ISLE ROYALE NATIONAL PARK, LAKE SUPERIOR, MICHIGAN. AN - 36382927; 050061D-050436_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a wilderness and backcountry management plan for Isle Royale National Park on Lake Superior in Michigan is proposed. The park and associated wilderness is characterized by a type of scenery that is utterly distinct from anything found elsewhere in the National Park System. The park's primitiveness, unusual wildlife and interesting flora, as well as its evidence of prehistoric occupation, combine to make Isle Royale and its neighboring islands of National Park caliber. The newly proposed plan would provide guidelines for the non-developed areas of the park, including all of the management zones outlined in the park's general management plan, excluding the open water motorized zone and the developed zone, which consist of Rock Harbor, Windigo, and Mott Island Headquarters. Additionally, all visitors included in the overnight perki9tting system would be included in the planning scope; this includes all visitors staying in designated campsites, camping off-trail, staying at docks, and anchoring out. The plan would provide stipulations for the management of overnight and day use, camp fires, fire towers, and picnic tables. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The combination of preferred alternatives would include management of day tours to concentrate the majority of day visitors close to developed and front country areas of the park and minimize adverse impacts to wilderness character and other critical resources. Although the preferred alterative for overnight use would add one campsite at North Desor campground and a few rustic cabins in Rock Harbor and provide for a new backcountry office, and the preferred alternative for day use would add three to five miles of trail, no new campgrounds would be constructed other than those approved in the park's general management plan. In addition, two fire towers would be removed and campfire rings would be located only where resource conditions could tolerate the associated impacts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred management plan would preserve the park's wilderness character, natural resources, and cultural resources, while providing for the use and enjoyment of the park's wilderness and backcountry areas by current and future generations. The management document would provide accountability, consistency, and continuity for managing the park's wilderness and backcountry and the park's place in the National Park Service's wilderness management program. Existing facilities would be used more efficiently, while unnecessary facilities would be removed from the wilderness. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Firewood seekers and uncontrolled fires started accidentally by visitors would result in some long-term, cumulative loss of vegetation due to the creation of unauthorized social trails. New facilities and campground provisions and demolition and removal of some existing facilities would displace yet more vegetation and soil and the associated wildlife habitat. Removal of two fire towers would eliminate these historically significant structures, but one remaining structure would function as a record of the historical use of such structures. Additional visitation would place more pressure on natural resources and park staff within the area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625), 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: 050436, 284 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-10 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Fire Control KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Isle Royale National Park KW - Great Lakes KW - Lake Superior KW - Michigan KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance KW - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382927?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WILDERNESS+AND+BACKCOUNTRY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ISLE+ROYALE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+LAKE+SUPERIOR%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=WILDERNESS+AND+BACKCOUNTRY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ISLE+ROYALE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+LAKE+SUPERIOR%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Isle Royale National Park, Michigan; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KASHA-KATUWE TENT ROCKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, NEW MEXICO: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - KASHA-KATUWE TENT ROCKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, NEW MEXICO: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 36382833; 050067D-050452_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general resource management plan for the Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument of New Mexico is proposed. Located in north-central New Mexico in the foothills of the Jemez Mountains on the Pajarito Plateau, the 5,395-acre national monument is situated in Sandoval County about 5 miles west of the Rio Grande. It lies about 35 miles southwest of Santa Fe and 52 miles northeast of Albuquerque The proposal at hand provides alternatives for managing the natural and cultural resources and uses in the national monument, which was designated by Presidential Proclamation 7394 in 2001.Before its designation as a national monument, the area was designated by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as an area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) through the Rio Puerco Resource Management Plan of 1986, maintained and reprinted, with amendments, in 1992, to protect its unique geologic formations, and scenic and cultural values. The BLM initiated a management agreement with the Pueblo de Cochiti tribe in 1997. In 2000, the two entities signed an Inter-Government Cooperative Agreement to provide for more consistent, effective and collaborative management of the Tent Rocks ACEC. Key issues addressed during scoping for the proposed general management plan include those related to land tenure adjustments, access and transportation, recreational activities, and traditional cultural practices and uses of Native Americans. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B, which is the proposed action, would focus on arranging resource allocations that would resolve the resource use issues and management concerns associated with the monument, while complying with the proclamation and current BLM policies, initiatives and guidance. Alternative C would emphasize an adaptive management approach (particularly for recreation management) with the inclusion of additional monitoring. Of the three alternatives, this alternative represents the highest accommodation of visitor access to and within the monument and highest potential for facility development. The goals for the monitoring and evaluation program would be to provide the basis for long-term adaptive management changes and ongoing planning. The monitoring results would trigger management changes to maximize recreational use, facility development, and the visitors' beneficial experiences while minimizing natural resource degradation and depletion. All management alternatives would address access and transportation, air quality, Native American uses and traditional practices, cultural resources, environmental justice, fire management, hazardous materials and solid wastes, land and realty, livestock grazing, noxious weed control, paleontological resources, recreational uses, soil and water resources, federally protected wildlife species, vegetation and woodland management, and visual resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: As dictated by the Presidential Proclamation, the proposed management plan would establish a regime designed to protect geologic, cultural, and biological objects of interest and to provide an opportunity to observe, study, and experience the unique geologic processes found in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The level of road intrusion on culturally important traditional activities of .local Native Americans, as well as on recreationists and residents who value the pristine wilderness values within the area., would decline but would not be eliminated. Approximately 241 acres of intensive use area would likewise affect the solitude and primitiveness values of the monument and would result in trampling of vegetation and soil erosion and compaction. The construction of 7.92 miles of trail would result in the destruction of vegetation and exacerbate erosion and sedimentation within trail corridors. At the same time, closure of roads and trails would limit access to some areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7394. JF - EPA number: 050452, 231 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-57 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Property Disposition KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7394, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382833?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KASHA-KATUWE+TENT+ROCKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+NEW+MEXICO%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=KASHA-KATUWE+TENT+ROCKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Santa Fe, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MENOMINEE CASINO-HOTEL, 223-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - MENOMINEE CASINO-HOTEL, 223-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, WISCONSIN. AN - 36381828; 050036D-050382_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of a 223-acre parcel in Menosha, Wisconsin into federal trust and approval of a gaming management contract for a tribal casino-hotel development at the transferred site are proposed. The probably would be taken into federal trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, while the National Indian Gaming Commission would approve the contract with the applicant, the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin. The result would be the construction and operation of a casino-hotel complex at the transferred site. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative A) would provide for the abovementioned transfer of land and establishment of the Commission-Tribe contract, allowing the development of the casino-hotel complex, while maintaining an existing greyhound racetrack, structure, concourse, and kennel facilities. Regional access to the complex would continue to be provided by Interstate 94, while 60th Street would provide emergency access. Other action alternatives include an alternative site, a reduced development intensity alternative, and the development of a complex including a hotel and conference center, supported by recreational facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The two proposed actions would allow the Tribe to develop an enterprise that would generate substantial net economic revenues, in turn, improving the long-term economic conditions of the Tribe and its members. Revenues generated by the economic development would be used to support social and educational programs for Tribe members. In addition to promoting economic development, the self-governance capacity of the Tribe would be enhanced through the development of tribal land. The non-Indian population of the area would enjoy knock-on benefits, particularly in the area of health status improvements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Casino and hotel development would result in the destruction of vegetation and disturbance of soils and associated wildlife habitat. New competition would affect other tribal gaming operations in the region, particularly the Forrest County Potawatomi casino in Milwaukee. Local and regional traffic levels would increase significantly, with no new expansion of transportation facilities proposed. Local and regional air quality would decline somewhat due to increase motor vehicle traffic in the area. Additional pressure would be placed on local services and infrastructure. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050382, 473 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Manufacturing KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381828?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MENOMINEE+CASINO-HOTEL%2C+223-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=MENOMINEE+CASINO-HOTEL%2C+223-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Spelling, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEAN WATER COALITION SYSTEMS CONVEYANCE AND OPERATIONS PROGRAM, LAKE MEAD RECREATION AREA, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CLEAN WATER COALITION SYSTEMS CONVEYANCE AND OPERATIONS PROGRAM, LAKE MEAD RECREATION AREA, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36381142; 050050D-050405_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Clean Water Coalition (CWC) Systems Conveyance and Operations Program (SCOP) for the Lake Meade Recreational Area of Boulder County, Nevada is proposed. The quantity of effluent treated and discharged in the Las Vegas Valley (Valley) will increase as the population of the Valley increases. Forecasts indicate that a combined maximum month flow of approximately 453 million gallons per day (mgd) of municipal wastewater will need to be treated and managed in the Las Vegas Valley by 2050 (Black & Veatch 2004a). The treatment and conveyance facilities must accommodate the additional flows while continuing to meet current or future water quality standards for the Las Vegas Wash, Las Vegas Bay, and Lake Mead. Currently, highly treated effluent is discharged to the Las Vegas Wash at the existing discharge locations. The City of Las Vegas, Clark County Water Reclamation District, and City of Henderson comprise the CWC, which was created to address the management of the increasing wastewater flows in the Las Vegas Valley, has proposed the SCOP. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to surface water hydrology, groundwater, water quality, biological resources/endangered species, cultural resources, recreation, land use, air quality, noise, and socioeconomics. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each alternative would provide a system of pipelines and tunnels that discharges highly treated wastewater effluent to an alternate location in Lake Mead. The SCOP system would be designed to collect the treated effluent flows from the three treatment facilities, for conveyance to an area in the lower Colorado River system, while the majority of the flows bypass the lower Las Vegas Wash. The SCOP would be located in Clark County, Nevada The system would include activities and infrastructure that would be located on lands owned and/or managed by the City of Las Vegas, City of Henderson, Clark County, United States (U.S.) Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), National Park Service (NPS), and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The action alternatives include the Boulder Islands North Alternative, Boulder Islands South Alternative, and Las Vegas Bay Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the pipeline would not be constructed. Highly treated effluent would continue to be discharged to the Las Vegas Wash at the existing discharge locations. The three agencies currently responsible for municipal wastewater treatment and discharge would expand and optimize their facilities to handle the increasing quantities of wastewater through 2050. Facility additions would occur on lands currently owned by the cities and county. Under the Boulder Islands North Alternative, a pipeline would be constructed that collects and transports highly treated effluent from the three treatment facilities to a receiving area in the vicinity of Boulder Islands. The Boulder Islands North Alternative includes the generation of electricity at a hydroelectric generation facility to be located on NPS land. Under the Boulder Islands South Alternative, a pipeline would be constructed that collects and transports highly treated effluent from the three treatment facilities to a receiving area in the vicinity of Boulder Islands, but there would be no power generation facility. Under the Las Vegas Bay Alternative, a pipeline would be constructed that collects and transports highly treated effluent from the three treatment facilities to a receiving area in the Las Vegas Bay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SCOP would meet current and future water quality standards for known pollutants, and as yet unknown standards for additional contaminants that may be regulated in the future; protect and enhance the Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA) by continuing to meet beneficial uses and recreational and resource values of the LMNRA, while more than doubling the treated effluent flows discharged to Lake Mead; accommodate Lake Mead's lowering water levels, which are important because the amount of mixing and dilution available in the inner Las Vegas Bay are also decreasing as the Lake level decreases; and reduce the degradation of source-water quality at the Southern Nevada Water System intake structures. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in the temporary displacement of wildlife species as well as disturbance, loss, or damage to individual plants and the seed bank. The SCOP would reduce the extent of habitat available to aquatic fauna. Project activities could result in removal of eligible cultural and paleontological resource sites from the landscape, some recreation areas would be inaccessible to the public during construction, and visual aesthetics would be marred by SCOP structures. Construction workers could encounter perchlorate contaminated groundwater 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 Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050405, 837 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Colorado River KW - Lake Mead KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance 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/36381142?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEAN+WATER+COALITION+SYSTEMS+CONVEYANCE+AND+OPERATIONS+PROGRAM%2C+LAKE+MEAD+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLEAN+WATER+COALITION+SYSTEMS+CONVEYANCE+AND+OPERATIONS+PROGRAM%2C+LAKE+MEAD+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bolder City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SLOAN CANYON NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SLOAN CANYON NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36379831; 050043F-050392_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a land and resource management plan for the 48,438-acre Sloan Canyon national Conservation Area (NCA) in Clark County, Nevada is proposed. In November 2002, Congress designated the Sloan Canyon NCA to preserve and protect a portion of southern Nevada's Mojave Desert as a permanent asset for future generations. The NCA forms the southern skyline of the city of Henderson and Las Vegas and contains important cultural and archaeological resources. The centerpiece of the NCA is the Sloan Canyon Petroglph Site, one of the most significant cultural resources in southern Nevada use of the NCA will be likely to change dramatically in coming years due o its proximity to urban and suburban development, requiring that management guidelines be developed to respond to visitor needs and protect the NCA's valuable resources. The designation of the North McCullough Wilderness Area requires that approximately 14,763 acres within the NCA be preserved and protected in their natural, primitive state. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C), known as the moderate development use alternative, would focus on a moderate increase development while maintaining the natural characteristics of the NCA. Recreational opportunities, such as mountain biking, equestrian use, and dispersed camping, would be provided, and users would be required to remain on designated trails in certain areas. The Sloan Canyon Petroglph Site would be accessed mainly from a multi-purpose visitor center at the north end of Sloan Canyon, and guided tours would be required during high use periods. Most existing roads and trails in the NCA would be closed to the public for motorized use. A multipurpose recreation/education visitor center would be provided at the north end of Sloan Canyon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would protect the Sloan Canyon Petroglyph, underscoring its importance to Native Americans; provide education on the importance of preserving and protecting and area's cultural, natural, and wilderness values; provide information and education on the Sloan Canyon NCA's resources in a creative manner; and provide recreational opportunities that would be compatible with and protect the various elements of the natural landscape. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the visitor center and other facilities would disturb soils and displace vegetation and the associated desert habitat. The location of the center would change use patterns and consolidate visitation in that area, concentrating most of the visitor-related damage there. Elimination of public motorized access in most areas would restrict visitation for some. LEGAL MANDATES: Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Sloan County National Conservation Area Act of 2002. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0512D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050392, 578 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 05-26 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Wilderness KW - Nevada KW - Sloan County National Conservation Area KW - Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Sloan County National Conservation Area Act of 2002, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379831?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SLOAN+CANYON+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SLOAN+CANYON+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36379647; 050131F-050412_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of approximately 127 miles of US 6 from Interstate 15 (I-15) in Spanish Fork to I-70 near Green River in Utah, Wasatch, Carbon, and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. US 6 constitutes a part of the national highway system and operates as a major east-west highway serving an important statewide transportation function by linking two major interstates, I-15 and I-70. US 6 is an important link between the rural communities of central and southeastern Utah and the populous Wasatch Front. Segments of US were constructed over 60 years ago and do not meet current safety design requirements. The increased travel demand on US 6 due to population growth along the Wasatch Front has resulted in a decreased level of service that does not meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials guidance for a highway of this class. Design flaws and increased traffic volumes have resulted in unacceptable accident and fatality rates for a roadway of this type. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2004. The Passing Lane Alternative would add passing lanes at selected locations along the corridor. This alternative would provide four-lane sections in areas on both sides of the highway where passing is required. The Four Lane Alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction through the entire corridor. Under either action alternative, existing substandard design elements would be upgraded to current design standards and median barriers or other median treatments would be added as appropriate. The Peerless port of entry would e relocated to improve safety as a component of either action alternative. Costs of the Passing Lane and Four Lane alternatives are estimated at $595.8 million and $678.4 million, respectively. The draft supplement of January 2005 to the draft EIS addresses the Four Lane Alternative, as well as impacts to air quality, water quality, wetlands, and mitigation measures. This final EIS continues to propose widening of US 6 from I-15 to I-70 via one of the two aforementioned action alternatives, while considering a No Action Alternative for comparison purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the highway to allow it to meet current design standards while reducing both the overall accident and fatality rates. The proposed action would also reduce overall congestion, generally improve the level of service, and maintain the highway as a key component of Utah's transportation network. Either action alternative would improve the level of service to C or better. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Passing Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7,7 acres of wetlands, 1,779 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. Travel times under this alternative would be greater than under the Four Lane Alternative, increasing user costs, and a few segments of the highway would provide an unacceptable level of service. The Four-Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7.7 acres {4-41} of wetlands, 2,153 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. This alternative would increase impervious surface within the corridor significantly more than the Passing Lane Alternative. Either alternative would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at 96 sensitive receptor sites. Either alternative would affect the federally protected Ute ladies'-tresses, clay phacelia, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker, as well as two state-listed bird species; 10 significant historical, three significant archaeological, eight significant architectural, and one significant paleontological sites; disturb 11 potential hazardous waste 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.), 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 05-0228D, Volume 29, Number 2 and 05-0418D, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050412, 573 pages and maps, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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, 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/36379647?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THYE UKIAH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THYE UKIAH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36379620; 050038D-050374_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan (RMP) for the Ukiah Resource Management Area of Marin, Solano, Sonoma, Mendocino, Lake, Napa, Yolo, Colusa, and Glenn counties, California is proposed. The plan, which would take effect in 2006 and remain in effect until 2026, would address 270,000 acres of public land and 214,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate within the jurisdiction of the Ukiah Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The RMP would address management issues related to visual resources, wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, riparian and wetland habitats, social and economic conditions, cultural resources, special use areas, forest resources, livestock grazing, the fire regime, mineral resources, wind energy, travel options and route designations, recreation resources, soil resources, and air quality. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to conflicts among motorized, mechanized, and non-motorized/non- mechanized recreationists; protection of sensitive natural and cultural resources from impacts due to increased recreational use and other land uses; provision of guidance for wind energy development; 1. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative d) would include the following Areas of Crucial Environmental Concern (ACECs): Cache Creek ACEC--10,000 acres (existing); Northern California Chaparral RNA (11,206 acres), Indian Valley Brodiaea ACEC (100 acres, currently 40 acres), Cedar Roughs ACEC/Resource Natural Area (6,350 acres, currently 5,567 acres), Knoxville ACEC (5,236 acres), Stornetta ACEC (887 acres), Walker Ridge ACEC (3,990 acres), The Cedars ACEC (1,500 acres), Black Forest ACEC (239 acres); and Lost Valley ACEC (40 acres). Two additional ACECs, namely the Blue Ridge ACEC- (13,640 acres) and Quail Ridge ACEC (558 acres) were considered but not included in the preferred alternative. Use of public lands within these ACECs would vary, depending on the resources and/or values identified, but would likely include limitations on off-highway vehicle use and development projects. Wild and scenic rivers and wilderness areas would be designated or proposed and managed accordingly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred RMP would enable the BLM to provide access to the management area for minerals extraction, wind energy and geothermal resource development, and other commercially viable natural resource exploitation, as well as recreational uses, while protecting fragile environments against undue encroachment. ACECs would receive particularly attention regarding fish and wildlife habitat and other vegetation and water resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploitation and recreational uses, particularly off-highway vehicle travel, would damage vegetation and disturb soils and otherwise contribute to the loss of habitat and the disturbance of wildlife. Land disturbance would increase erosion and sediment loads in receiving surface waters. Wind energy developments would have particular and controversial impacts on the visual and aural aesthetic environments. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050374, Draft EIS--441 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2005-01-1790-1600 KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Ukiah 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/36379620?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THYE+UKIAH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THYE+UKIAH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ukiah, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36379555; 050076F-050470_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan to addresses recreational uses of the 277-mile section of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. For the purposes of the planning effort, the river has been divided into two geographic sections, with a specific set of alternatives for each section. For the upper section, extending from Lees Ferry at River Mile (RM) 0 to Diamond Creek at RM 226, this final EIS considers eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). The upper section alternatives represent different mixes and limits of group size, trip length, launches per day, user-days, seasonal variations, motorized and non-motorized use, commercial and noncommercial use, and other factors. Major issues addressed by the alternatives include those related to the appropriate level of visitor use consistent with natural and cultural resource protection and visitor experience goals; allocation of use between commercial and noncommercial groups; the noncommercial permit system; the level of motorized and non-motorized boat use; the range of services provided to the public; the use of helicopters to transport river passengers to and from the river; and appropriate levels and types of upstream travel from Lake Mead. The preferred alternative (Alternative H, Modified) provides for a mix of motorized and non-motorized use, a six-month non-motorized use season, more evenly distributed launch patterns, and changes to allocation and permit systems. For the lower section, extending from Diamond Creek to Lake Mead at RM 227, the EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). The park shares a common boundary with the Hualapai Tribe along 108 miles of the river, and the Tribe is a cooperating agency in the preparation of this final EIS, which includes an alternative identified as preferred by the Tribe. Major differences distinguishing lower section alternatives include limits on commercial launches from Diamond Creek, pontoon boat operations in the Quartermaster area, and facilities and upriver travel from Lake Mead. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4, Modified) is the same as the Hualapai Tribe's preferred alternative (Alternative 5) except for the lower than current averages of pontoon boat operations and the allowance of upriver travel to Separation Canyon at full lake levels. Alternative 5 would have much higher than current levels of pontoon boat operations and would restrict upriver travel to below RM 273. Both lower section alternatives would reduce current commercial group sized and allow more overnight use in the section extending from Diamond Creek to Quartermaster. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternatives would provide for appropriately controlled access to the river within Grand Canyon National Park, providing extensive recreational opportunities in a variety of water-related environments while protecting natural resources, particularly wilderness values, associated with the Grand Canyon. Expanded use of the corridor would enhance the local economies along the affected section of the river. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Motorized and non-motorized users of the river would occasionally come into conflict. Increased visitation would place additional stress on natural and cultural resources as well as park management and operations resources. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978 (I6 U.S.C. 1a-1) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0190D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050470, Volume 1--275 pages, Volume 2--652 pages, Volume 3--427 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Lakes KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wilderness KW - Arizona KW - Colorado River KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Lake Mead KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379555?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DELTA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, OLD RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - SOUTH DELTA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, OLD RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36379428; 050172D-050462_0004 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050462, Volume 1a--235 pages, Volume 1b--608 pages, Volume 1c--389 pages, Volume 1d--418 pages, Appendix A-I--663 pages, Appendix J-Q--519 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 05-62 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/36379428?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DELTA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, OLD RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - SOUTH DELTA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, OLD RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36379171; 050172D-050462_0002 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050462, Volume 1a--235 pages, Volume 1b--608 pages, Volume 1c--389 pages, Volume 1d--418 pages, Appendix A-I--663 pages, Appendix J-Q--519 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 05-62 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/36379171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DELTA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, OLD RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - SOUTH DELTA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, OLD RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36378792; 050172D-050462_0003 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050462, Volume 1a--235 pages, Volume 1b--608 pages, Volume 1c--389 pages, Volume 1d--418 pages, Appendix A-I--663 pages, Appendix J-Q--519 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 05-62 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/36378792?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEATH VALLEY NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA: RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FURNACE CREEK WATER COLLECTION SYSTEM. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - DEATH VALLEY NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA: RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FURNACE CREEK WATER COLLECTION SYSTEM. AN - 36378596; 050058D-050424_0001 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 adit at Texas Springs, and a tunnel for water collection constructed similar to a mine adit 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 nonpotable purposes. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would rebuild the outdated water collection All three action alternatives would separate the potable and nonpotable water system in the project area and provide nonpotable 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 nonpotable 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 Springs, 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, archaeological, 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.). JF - EPA number: 050424, 523 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests 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/36378596?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEATH+VALLEY+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RECONSTRUCTION+OF+THE+FURNACE+CREEK+WATER+COLLECTION+SYSTEM.&rft.title=DEATH+VALLEY+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RECONSTRUCTION+OF+THE+FURNACE+CREEK+WATER+COLLECTION+SYSTEM.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTHWESTERN ARIZONA AND EASTERN CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTHWESTERN ARIZONA AND EASTERN CALIFORNIA. AN - 36378527; 050046D-050400_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised land and resource management plan for the Lake Havadu Field Office (LHFO) area of northwestern Arizona and eastern California is proposed. The area encompasses 1.3 million acres of public lands along the Colorado River and east to Alamo Dam and the Harcuvar Mountains. Currently, the LHFO manages resources under portions of four different land use plans: the Yuma District Resource Management Plan (1987), the Kingman Resource Area Resource Management Plan (1995), the Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (1988), and the Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (1983). This proposed management plan would combine the relevant portions of those documents and updates the plan with issues and concerns identified during the public scoping process. Key issues identified during scoping include the identification of lands available for disposal, management of recreation and public access, designation and management of special area designations, management of areas having wilderness characteristics, management of wild burros around Lake Alamo, and the Bureau of Land Management's role in the management of Lake Havasu. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 emphasizes preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreation and resource development. Alternative 4 makes land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural settings than in Alternative 2. Alternative 5, the agency Preferred Alternative, provides for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. The alternative would focus on the following 14 topics and the potential decisions needed to influence future actions: Biological Resources (including special status species, aquatic species, vegetation, wildlife habitat management); cultural resources; fire management; grazing; the Lake Havasu Regional Management Area; lands and realty (including use authorizations, disposals and acquisition of public lands); mineral management; paleontological resources; public lands with wilderness characteristics; recreation; special area designations, including areas of critical environmental concern, wilderness areas, proposed wild and scenic river segments, and backcountry byways; transportation and public access; visual resources; and, wild horse and burros. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations by protecting natural resources while providing access to users of these resources for commercial and recreational purposes. A multiple-use, sustained yield approach would be certain to balance resource use against preservation and continued viability of both the various ecosystems and the exploitation of extractable resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management activities, extraction of minerals and other resources, and other commercial and recreational uses would impact cultural and paleontological resources, biological resources, recreational users, public access and transportation, land ownership patterns, wildlife, pasture for livestock grazing, special areas, areas eligible for wilderness designation, mineral accessibility, visual aesthetics, and the socioeconomic situation of residents and other users. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050400, Volume I--470 pages, Volume II--500 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Lake Havadu 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/36378527?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAKE+HAVASU+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTHWESTERN+ARIZONA+AND+EASTERN+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LAKE+HAVASU+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTHWESTERN+ARIZONA+AND+EASTERN+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Lake Havasu City, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRST LADIES NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, CANTON, OHIO: GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - FIRST LADIES NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, CANTON, OHIO: GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 36378147; 050049D-050404_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the First Ladies National Historic Site in Canton, Ohio is proposed. The site was established in 2000 to preserve and interpret the role and history of wives of presidents of the United States for the benefit, inspiration, and education of the public. The site encompasses a 0.33-acre tract in downtown Canton, which includes a 19th Century structure, known as the Ida Saxton McKinley House and the City National Bank Building. The enabling legislation anticipates that the City National Bank Building, which houses the Educational Resource Center (ERC), would be acquired by the National Park System through donation from the National First Ladies Library (NFLL). At the time of acquisition, the boundary would be expanded to include the City National Bank Building. The National Park Service (NPS) could accept donations of land that were not included in the enabling legislation, but congressional legislation would be required before any such land could be included within the site boundary. Since the NPS anticipates that the NFLL might, at some point, wish to donate the Rotary Park and parking lot to the NPS, this document includes a boundary assessment that considers adjusting the park boundary to include these two properties. The site has no approved long-term management plan at present; the proposed plan would direct management of the site for the next 15 to 20 years. Three alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A would provide interpretation of the roads and significance of First Ladies through partnerships with women's history sites, the White House, historical societies, First Ladies organizations, and other interested organizations for such resources as e-biographies, museum collections, exhibits, interpretive programs, curriculum-based education, and research. Local businesses would provide services such as parking, transportation, promotional materials, and grounds maintenance. The Saxton-McKinley House and the ERC would be available for use by the NFLL, NPS, and future partners. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a wide variety of methods to interpret the significance of First Ladies and their public roles and private lives. Emphasis would be placed on encouraging self-discovery and self-directed learning through experiential activities while on site. There would be a robust outreach program aimed at a broad range of potential visitors, from the unscheduled casual visitor to the vocational historian, museum curator, historic preservationist, and school group. Alternative C would combine elements of traditional on-site visitation with an emphasis on scholarly research on the roles and impacts of the First Ladies and associated events. To achieve this concept, the NFLL would actively seek accreditation for the ERC as a research facility and would seek museum accreditation for the Saxin-McKinley House. The library collection soul be an internationally known, comprehensive annotated electronic bibliographic library augmented by a collection containing printed material and small personal artifacts associated with each of the First Ladies. The target audience would be researchers. Including the costs of accreditation of the McKinley House as a museum, the 20-year cost of site establishment and management have been estimated at $14.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred management plan would provide a comprehensive management framework to guide resource preservation, visitor use, and administration of the site. As appropriate, specific actions and particular program implementation and prioritization would be left for decision makers once a firm structure is established under the open-ended planning approach. This approach would constitute adaptive management, responding to the needs of the public and the scholarly community. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: NONE. LEGAL MANDATES: First Ladies National Historic Site Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-291) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050404, 68 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-49 KW - Buildings KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Museums KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - First Ladies National Historic Site KW - Ohio KW - First Ladies National Historic Site Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378147?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRST+LADIES+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+CANTON%2C+OHIO%3A+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=FIRST+LADIES+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+CANTON%2C+OHIO%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, Mentor, Ohio; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE INTEGRATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, IDAHO. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE INTEGRATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, IDAHO. AN - 36378113; 050031D-050397_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a programmatic integrated resource management plan is proposed for the Cour d'Alane Tribe's reservation in the Coeur d'Alene Basin of the western Rocky Mountains in Idaho. The management plan would establish 100-year desired future conditions and 20-year management goals for land use, natural resource enhancement and protection, residential and commercial development, and cultural preservation. More specifically, the long-term desired conditions and short-term goals address subsistence activities; the rural character of the reservation; maintenance and restoration of wetlands, riparian areas, streams, and forested land; limitation of subdivision of property in all management areas excepting areas designated for such development; provision of a land use plan, with provisions for shoreline management, for the reservation; provision of open space plans for reservation watersheds; and implementation of principles of conservation zoning to require conservation of open space identified in the plans when property was development. The plan would provide measures addressing development of commercial, industrial, residential, recreational, and administrative facilities. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing ad hoc management approach, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would implement the integrated resource management plan outlined above. Land use allocations would designate of 11,136 acres for development, 76,149 acres of conservation set asides, 51,123 acres for rural uses, 92,565 acres for agricultural development, and 95,558 acres for forest uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The current rural condition of the reservation of the reservation would be preserved over the long-term. The natural, cultural, and economic needs of the Tribe would be protected and enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development activities would result in some habitat loss and fragmentation and declines in native species. The alteration of resource conditions could affect subsistence activities and other culturally significant values of Tribe members. Riparian habitat, wetlands, and shoreline areas would be degraded and displaced. JF - EPA number: 050397, Summary--54 pages, Draft EIS--415 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agriculture KW - Commercial Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Housing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Industrial Districts KW - Land Management KW - Open Space KW - Shores KW - Streams KW - Subsistence KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378113?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COEUR+D%27ALENE+TRIBE+INTEGRATED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=COEUR+D%27ALENE+TRIBE+INTEGRATED+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 Indian Affairs, Plummer, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DELTA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, OLD RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - SOUTH DELTA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, OLD RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36372884; 050172D-050462_0006 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050462, Volume 1a--235 pages, Volume 1b--608 pages, Volume 1c--389 pages, Volume 1d--418 pages, Appendix A-I--663 pages, Appendix J-Q--519 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 05-62 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/36372884?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DELTA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, OLD RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - SOUTH DELTA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, OLD RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36372810; 050172D-050462_0005 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050462, Volume 1a--235 pages, Volume 1b--608 pages, Volume 1c--389 pages, Volume 1d--418 pages, Appendix A-I--663 pages, Appendix J-Q--519 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 05-62 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/36372810?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANAGING WATER IN THE WEST, HUMBOLDT PROJECT CONVEYANCE, PERSHING, CHURCHILL, AND LANDER COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MANAGING WATER IN THE WEST, HUMBOLDT PROJECT CONVEYANCE, PERSHING, CHURCHILL, AND LANDER COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 36372225; 050169F-050420_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of 83,530 acres of lands associated with the Humboldt Project to the Pershing County Water Conveyance District (PCWCD), Pershing, Churchill, and Lander Counties and the state of Nevada. is proposed. The project, which is located in north-central Nevada, is a water storage reservoir owned and administered by the Bureau of Reclamation. The project includes 32,650 acres known as the Humboldt Sink, 20,800 acres within and adjacent to the Rye Patch Reservoir, and 30,000 acres of pasture land known as the Community Patch. Rights to the approximately acreage conveyed would include title and interest in the land, including all water rights for storage and diversion. Lands withdrawn by the Bureau of Reclamation within the Humboldt Sink would transfer to the state of Nevada and Pershing County. In accordance with the Humboldt Conveyance Act and related agreements, the state would receive title to 31,660 acres of withdrawn land in the Humboldt Sink; the Nevada Department of Wildlife would continue to operate and maintain these lands as part of the Humboldt Wildlife Management Area. Pershing County would receive 990 acres of land for future expansion of the Derby Airfield. All lands acquired in the Rye Patch Reservoir area would be conveyed to the PCWCD. All withdrawn lands below the reservoir high water mark would transfer the PCWCD. All withdrawn lands above the high water mark would be conveyed to the state. The state would continue to operate and maintain the recreation facilities at the Rye Patch State Recreation Area. The PCWCD would maintain a minimum operational pool of 3,000 acre-feet of storage. Lands within the Battle Mountain Community Pasture would be transferred to PCWCD, Lander County, and the state. PCWCD would receive title to 22,500 acres within the Community Pasture and would continue its management and operation as a livestock pasture. The state would receive title to 5,850 acres within the Community Pasture for the purpose of creating a wetland. The state would assume responsibility for operation and maintenance of Slaven Diversion Dam near the east end of the Community Pasture in conjunction with other beneficial uses of the facility when it was needed to divert water to the newly developed wetland. In addition, Lander County would receive title to 1,100 acres of Community Pasture lands or industrial development, county fairgrounds, and a primitive park and access easements along the Humboldt River. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the Humboldt Project lands would not be conveyed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: PCWCD would increase its irrigation water supply base. The state would use the land it received to increase and enhance wildlife habitat in the area and improve recreational opportunities. Wetland acreage in the area would increase significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased public access along the Humboldt River in the Battle Mountain area could result in bank erosion or sedimentation of the river. Federally listed species in the conveyed areas would no longer benefit from protection under the Endangered Species Act. Similarly, dam safety and cultural resource protection would pass out of federal authority. Airfield expansion, industrial development, and recreational area development would displace vegetation. the industrial development would be located just north of lands owned by the Battle Mountain Band of the Te-Moak Tribe. Continued livestock grazing would continue competition between wildlife and cattle for forage. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act for FY 2004 (P.L. 108-357) and Humboldt Project Conveyance Act (P.L. 107-282). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0446D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050420, 292 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 05-29 KW - Airports KW - Diversion Structures KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Industrial Districts KW - Irrigation KW - Livestock KW - Property Disposition KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Vegetation KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Humboldt River KW - Nevada KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act for FY 2004, Project Authorization KW - Humboldt Project Conveyance Act, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372225?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANAGING+WATER+IN+THE+WEST%2C+HUMBOLDT+PROJECT+CONVEYANCE%2C+PERSHING%2C+CHURCHILL%2C+AND+LANDER+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=MANAGING+WATER+IN+THE+WEST%2C+HUMBOLDT+PROJECT+CONVEYANCE%2C+PERSHING%2C+CHURCHILL%2C+AND+LANDER+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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MENOMINEE CASINO-HOTEL, 223-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, WISCONSIN. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - MENOMINEE CASINO-HOTEL, 223-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, WISCONSIN. AN - 36370873; 050036D-050382_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of a 223-acre parcel in Menosha, Wisconsin into federal trust and approval of a gaming management contract for a tribal casino-hotel development at the transferred site are proposed. The probably would be taken into federal trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, while the National Indian Gaming Commission would approve the contract with the applicant, the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin. The result would be the construction and operation of a casino-hotel complex at the transferred site. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative A) would provide for the abovementioned transfer of land and establishment of the Commission-Tribe contract, allowing the development of the casino-hotel complex, while maintaining an existing greyhound racetrack, structure, concourse, and kennel facilities. Regional access to the complex would continue to be provided by Interstate 94, while 60th Street would provide emergency access. Other action alternatives include an alternative site, a reduced development intensity alternative, and the development of a complex including a hotel and conference center, supported by recreational facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The two proposed actions would allow the Tribe to develop an enterprise that would generate substantial net economic revenues, in turn, improving the long-term economic conditions of the Tribe and its members. Revenues generated by the economic development would be used to support social and educational programs for Tribe members. In addition to promoting economic development, the self-governance capacity of the Tribe would be enhanced through the development of tribal land. The non-Indian population of the area would enjoy knock-on benefits, particularly in the area of health status improvements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Casino and hotel development would result in the destruction of vegetation and disturbance of soils and associated wildlife habitat. New competition would affect other tribal gaming operations in the region, particularly the Forrest County Potawatomi casino in Milwaukee. Local and regional traffic levels would increase significantly, with no new expansion of transportation facilities proposed. Local and regional air quality would decline somewhat due to increase motor vehicle traffic in the area. Additional pressure would be placed on local services and infrastructure. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050382, 473 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Manufacturing KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370873?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MENOMINEE+CASINO-HOTEL%2C+223-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=MENOMINEE+CASINO-HOTEL%2C+223-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Spelling, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTHWESTERN ARIZONA AND EASTERN CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTHWESTERN ARIZONA AND EASTERN CALIFORNIA. AN - 36370720; 050046D-050400_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised land and resource management plan for the Lake Havadu Field Office (LHFO) area of northwestern Arizona and eastern California is proposed. The area encompasses 1.3 million acres of public lands along the Colorado River and east to Alamo Dam and the Harcuvar Mountains. Currently, the LHFO manages resources under portions of four different land use plans: the Yuma District Resource Management Plan (1987), the Kingman Resource Area Resource Management Plan (1995), the Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (1988), and the Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (1983). This proposed management plan would combine the relevant portions of those documents and updates the plan with issues and concerns identified during the public scoping process. Key issues identified during scoping include the identification of lands available for disposal, management of recreation and public access, designation and management of special area designations, management of areas having wilderness characteristics, management of wild burros around Lake Alamo, and the Bureau of Land Management's role in the management of Lake Havasu. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 emphasizes preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreation and resource development. Alternative 4 makes land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural settings than in Alternative 2. Alternative 5, the agency Preferred Alternative, provides for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. The alternative would focus on the following 14 topics and the potential decisions needed to influence future actions: Biological Resources (including special status species, aquatic species, vegetation, wildlife habitat management); cultural resources; fire management; grazing; the Lake Havasu Regional Management Area; lands and realty (including use authorizations, disposals and acquisition of public lands); mineral management; paleontological resources; public lands with wilderness characteristics; recreation; special area designations, including areas of critical environmental concern, wilderness areas, proposed wild and scenic river segments, and backcountry byways; transportation and public access; visual resources; and, wild horse and burros. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations by protecting natural resources while providing access to users of these resources for commercial and recreational purposes. A multiple-use, sustained yield approach would be certain to balance resource use against preservation and continued viability of both the various ecosystems and the exploitation of extractable resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management activities, extraction of minerals and other resources, and other commercial and recreational uses would impact cultural and paleontological resources, biological resources, recreational users, public access and transportation, land ownership patterns, wildlife, pasture for livestock grazing, special areas, areas eligible for wilderness designation, mineral accessibility, visual aesthetics, and the socioeconomic situation of residents and other users. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050400, Volume I--470 pages, Volume II--500 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Lake Havadu 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/36370720?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAKE+HAVASU+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTHWESTERN+ARIZONA+AND+EASTERN+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LAKE+HAVASU+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTHWESTERN+ARIZONA+AND+EASTERN+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Lake Havasu City, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESORUCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESORUCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 36368598; 050065D-050448_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.) JF - EPA number: 050448, 544 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-61 KW - Aircraft KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management 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/36368598?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&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+RESORUCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%3A+RESORUCE+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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK, NORTH UNIT, JACKSON, PENNINGTON, AND SHANNON COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK, NORTH UNIT, JACKSON, PENNINGTON, AND SHANNON COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. AN - 36368419; 050064D-050445_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of revised a general management plan fr the North Unit of Badlands National Park in Jackson, Pennington, and Shannon counties, South Dakota is proposed. The plan would guide management of the unit over the next 15 to 20 years. The park encompasses 243,000 acres and features outstanding and unique scenic values, paleontologic resources, and natural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, would offer a range of high-quality visitor opportunities and improved facilities while ensuring the protection of natural and cultural resources. Additional facilities would be developed so that amenities and interpretive locations would be better dispersed throughout the park. A visitor contact station would be established near Pinnacles, making it possible for visitors to obtain information about the park upon entry from the west. Another contact station would be established in the town of Scenic through lease or partnership with another entity. More hiking trails and routes would be provided. The plan would include the acquisition of 5,400 acres along South Dakota Highway 44 to protect additional prairie and badlands features as well as the acquisition of 4,500 acres along the western edge of the park's North Unit, adjacent to the wilderness area. Costs of capital improvements and costs of annual operations are estimated at $3.3 million and $3.5 million, respectively. Alternative C would focus on resource protection, with some improvements for visitors' use of the park. Alternative D would focus on education and on the research value of the park. Resource preservation would remain a key management mandate under any alternative. All action alternatives would also include realignment of the the Loop Road trough the park. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would offer a range of high-quality visitor opportunities and improve the stewardship of park resources. The quality and range of visitor experiences would be enhanced, while educational and recreational opportunities would be designed to extend the average time each visitor spends in the park. Management zoning would more effectively achieve long-term goals for resource conditions. Land acquisition would add habitat for bison and for restoration of black-footed ferret, one of North America's most endangered mammals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Human uses and construction of new facilities would result in minor adverse impacts on natural resource in some areas throughout the park. The impacts on wildlife, vegetation, and visitor experiences would be unavoidable. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). JF - EPA number: 050445, 281 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-60 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Geologic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Badlands National Park KW - South Dakota KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368419?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+BADLANDS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+NORTH+UNIT%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENNINGTON%2C+AND+SHANNON+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+BADLANDS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+NORTH+UNIT%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENNINGTON%2C+AND+SHANNON+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, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36367866; 050076F-050470_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan to addresses recreational uses of the 277-mile section of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. For the purposes of the planning effort, the river has been divided into two geographic sections, with a specific set of alternatives for each section. For the upper section, extending from Lees Ferry at River Mile (RM) 0 to Diamond Creek at RM 226, this final EIS considers eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). The upper section alternatives represent different mixes and limits of group size, trip length, launches per day, user-days, seasonal variations, motorized and non-motorized use, commercial and noncommercial use, and other factors. Major issues addressed by the alternatives include those related to the appropriate level of visitor use consistent with natural and cultural resource protection and visitor experience goals; allocation of use between commercial and noncommercial groups; the noncommercial permit system; the level of motorized and non-motorized boat use; the range of services provided to the public; the use of helicopters to transport river passengers to and from the river; and appropriate levels and types of upstream travel from Lake Mead. The preferred alternative (Alternative H, Modified) provides for a mix of motorized and non-motorized use, a six-month non-motorized use season, more evenly distributed launch patterns, and changes to allocation and permit systems. For the lower section, extending from Diamond Creek to Lake Mead at RM 227, the EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). The park shares a common boundary with the Hualapai Tribe along 108 miles of the river, and the Tribe is a cooperating agency in the preparation of this final EIS, which includes an alternative identified as preferred by the Tribe. Major differences distinguishing lower section alternatives include limits on commercial launches from Diamond Creek, pontoon boat operations in the Quartermaster area, and facilities and upriver travel from Lake Mead. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4, Modified) is the same as the Hualapai Tribe's preferred alternative (Alternative 5) except for the lower than current averages of pontoon boat operations and the allowance of upriver travel to Separation Canyon at full lake levels. Alternative 5 would have much higher than current levels of pontoon boat operations and would restrict upriver travel to below RM 273. Both lower section alternatives would reduce current commercial group sized and allow more overnight use in the section extending from Diamond Creek to Quartermaster. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternatives would provide for appropriately controlled access to the river within Grand Canyon National Park, providing extensive recreational opportunities in a variety of water-related environments while protecting natural resources, particularly wilderness values, associated with the Grand Canyon. Expanded use of the corridor would enhance the local economies along the affected section of the river. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Motorized and non-motorized users of the river would occasionally come into conflict. Increased visitation would place additional stress on natural and cultural resources as well as park management and operations resources. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978 (I6 U.S.C. 1a-1) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0190D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050470, Volume 1--275 pages, Volume 2--652 pages, Volume 3--427 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Lakes KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wilderness KW - Arizona KW - Colorado River KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Lake Mead KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367866?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ELK VALLEY RANCHERIA, MARTIN RANCH FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO/RESORT PROJECT, DEL NORTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - ELK VALLEY RANCHERIA, MARTIN RANCH FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO/RESORT PROJECT, DEL NORTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36367809; 050121D-050396_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a destination resort, including a hotel, conference center, casino, and parking facility, within a 213.5-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 draft 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 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. 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 even incorporated into the project design to address potential impacts associated with storm water runoff. Clearing of vegetation, grading o 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.). JF - EPA number: 050396, Draft EIS--281 pages, Appendices--720 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Research and Development KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Trails KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367809?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MENOMINEE CASINO-HOTEL, 223-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, WISCONSIN. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - MENOMINEE CASINO-HOTEL, 223-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, WISCONSIN. AN - 36367790; 050036D-050382_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of a 223-acre parcel in Menosha, Wisconsin into federal trust and approval of a gaming management contract for a tribal casino-hotel development at the transferred site are proposed. The probably would be taken into federal trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, while the National Indian Gaming Commission would approve the contract with the applicant, the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin. The result would be the construction and operation of a casino-hotel complex at the transferred site. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative A) would provide for the abovementioned transfer of land and establishment of the Commission-Tribe contract, allowing the development of the casino-hotel complex, while maintaining an existing greyhound racetrack, structure, concourse, and kennel facilities. Regional access to the complex would continue to be provided by Interstate 94, while 60th Street would provide emergency access. Other action alternatives include an alternative site, a reduced development intensity alternative, and the development of a complex including a hotel and conference center, supported by recreational facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The two proposed actions would allow the Tribe to develop an enterprise that would generate substantial net economic revenues, in turn, improving the long-term economic conditions of the Tribe and its members. Revenues generated by the economic development would be used to support social and educational programs for Tribe members. In addition to promoting economic development, the self-governance capacity of the Tribe would be enhanced through the development of tribal land. The non-Indian population of the area would enjoy knock-on benefits, particularly in the area of health status improvements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Casino and hotel development would result in the destruction of vegetation and disturbance of soils and associated wildlife habitat. New competition would affect other tribal gaming operations in the region, particularly the Forrest County Potawatomi casino in Milwaukee. Local and regional traffic levels would increase significantly, with no new expansion of transportation facilities proposed. Local and regional air quality would decline somewhat due to increase motor vehicle traffic in the area. Additional pressure would be placed on local services and infrastructure. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050382, 473 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Manufacturing KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367790?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MENOMINEE+CASINO-HOTEL%2C+223-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=MENOMINEE+CASINO-HOTEL%2C+223-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Spelling, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASTLE PEAK AND EIGHTMILE FLAT OIL AND GAS EXPANSION PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CASTLE PEAK AND EIGHTMILE FLAT OIL AND GAS EXPANSION PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36367244; 050016F-050429_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Cattle Peak and Eightmile Flat Oil and Gas Expansion Project in Duchesne and Uintah counties of northeastern Utah is proposed. The project would involve drilling and production operations or the exploitation of oil and gas resources, along with ancillary facilities, including access roads, pipelines, and protection facilities. The project would constitute an expansion of existing waterflood oil recovery activities undertaken by the applicant, Inland Resources Inc., in the project area. The expansion would encompass 64,000 acres, with project-associated surface disturbance limited to 3,700 acres. The development would occur primarily on public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the state of Utah. Currently, the project area includes 671 production and injection wells. The proposed new drilling would kcreate an additional 973 wells over a 12-year period. The applicant would drill an additional 70 to 130 wells per year until the resource base was fully developed. The enw wells would be drilled on a 40-acre spacing pattern to recover oil and gas reserves from the Green River Formation at depths of 4,500 to 6,500 feet. The applicant would drill approximately 50 percent of the wells as production wells and the remainder as injection wells. To increase the crude oil recovery rate from this field, the applicant would inject water under pressure into the oil-bearing formation to force out a greater quantity of oil than would be produced with conventional pumping. Water for the project would be supplied via existing Water District contracts, the Green River, and various oil- and water-bearing reservoirs within the Green River Formation underlying the field. At peak usage, the project would require 2,333 acre-feet per year. Project facilities would include 83 miles of new and upgraded roads and 80 acres of injection water distribution lines, gas gathering pipelines, pumps, and oil storage tanks. The applicant would implement voluntary environmental measures to address sensitive cultural and paleontological resources, livestock grazing, noxious weeds, special status species habitats, aesthetics, and hazardous materials. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers an action alternative (Alternative A) and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would involve the drilling of 922 wells, 51 fewer wells than planned under the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Exploitation of the well field would yield 5,071 barrels of crude oil and 6.5 million cubic feet of saleable natural gas per day, ensuring a reliable supply of gas to the region and reducing the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil and gas. Expansion of the well field would employ an addition 162 workers and 47 support jobs within the community. Federal oil and gas royalties would amount to $6.1 million per year, and annual county receipts would amount to $3.8 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Well field injection wells would consume 1,942 acre-feet of water per year from the Green River alluvium. Approximately 263 wells and associated roads are located within 200 feet of wash channels, exposing them to damage from flooding. Approximately 1,171 acres of surface disturbance could occur on sites containing paleontological resources of potential high significance. Wells and ancillary facilities would disturb 3,582 acres of native shrubland habitats, most of which currently offer some value as wildlife habitat. Vegetation on 73 percent of the surface disturbance associated with the preferred alternative would require up to 50 years to recover due to poor soil conditions. Special status species to be affected would include plants, birds, riparian species, mammals, and fish. At maximum well field buildout, 333 livestock and wildlife animal unit months (AUMs) out of a total of 11,316 AUMs would be unavailable each year over the life of the project, and minor changes in seasonal stocking rates could occur on three allotments. 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 05-0141D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050429, 621 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/UT-080-2002-168 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Flood Hazards KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Utah KW - Diamond Mountain 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/36367244?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASTLE+PEAK+AND+EIGHTMILE+FLAT+OIL+AND+GAS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=CASTLE+PEAK+AND+EIGHTMILE+FLAT+OIL+AND+GAS+EXPANSION+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, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ELK VALLEY RANCHERIA, MARTIN RANCH FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO/RESORT PROJECT, DEL NORTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - ELK VALLEY RANCHERIA, MARTIN RANCH FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO/RESORT PROJECT, DEL NORTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36367121; 050121D-050396_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a destination resort, including a hotel, conference center, casino, and parking facility, within a 213.5-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 draft 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 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. 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 even incorporated into the project design to address potential impacts associated with storm water runoff. Clearing of vegetation, grading o 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.). JF - EPA number: 050396, Draft EIS--281 pages, Appendices--720 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Research and Development KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Trails KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367121?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HOOVER CREEK STREAM MANAGEMENT PLAN, HERBERT HOOVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, IOWA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - HOOVER CREEK STREAM MANAGEMENT PLAN, HERBERT HOOVER NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, IOWA. AN - 36367011; 050041D-050390_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a stream management plan for the Hoover Creek corridor of the Herbert Hoover National Historic Site of West Branch, Iowa is proposed. The plan, which would primarily provide flood control benefits, lies 10 miles east of Iowa City within the 187-acre Hoover Historic Site; the site commemorates the life of the 31st President of the United States. The tributary of concern, which runs through the park and has no official name but is known as "Hoover Creek", forms within the park as two small tributaries entering from the north and west, where it flows to the east through the heart of the park and exits the park upstream of its confluence with the west branch of Wapsinonoc Creek. Many of the historic resources within the historic site lie within the 50-, 25-, and 15-year floodplains of Hoover Creek and the west branch of Wapsinonoc Creek. Although the park has developed a flood response plan and fitted many of the structures with protective measures, these measures, these measures would not adequately prevent damage from floods exceeding a two-year storm event. Hoover Creek also serves as the primary drainage for portions of the city of West Branch, where development has altered the hydrologic regime. Changes in flow characteristics have adversely affected stream health and function as well as changes in the physical appearance of Herbert Hoover's childhood home. Five 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 E) would provide protection against the flood resulting from a 50-year storm event. A storm water detention basin would be excavated, providing a storage capacity of 138 acre-feet, increasing the natural capacity of the creek by 101 acre-feet. In addition, the plan would provide for a 1,050-cubic=foot=per=second channel configuration for a distance of 1,200 linear feet, a grade control structure, replacement of dense vegetation with low-profile plant cover, and rehabilitation of a historic wall upstream of the Downey Street Bridge. Flood protection would be achieved through controlled flow release from the detention basin and installation of waterproof door shields to protect the Visitor Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing protection to the Hoover Site and its historic resources, the stream management plan would improve stream functions, including drainage for the city of West Branch. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The detention basin would displace 17 acres of land and alter stream hydrology, though the loss of soils and vegetation would be minor compared to the flood protection provided to the remaining habitat and most of the hydrological impacts would be beneficial. 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: 050390, 238 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-47 KW - Creeks KW - Drainage KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Water Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Herbert Hoover National Historic Site KW - Iowa 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/36367011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HOOVER+CREEK+STREAM+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HERBERT+HOOVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+IOWA.&rft.title=HOOVER+CREEK+STREAM+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HERBERT+HOOVER+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+IOWA.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MENOMINEE CASINO-HOTEL, 223-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, WISCONSIN. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - MENOMINEE CASINO-HOTEL, 223-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, WISCONSIN. AN - 36366872; 050036D-050382_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of a 223-acre parcel in Menosha, Wisconsin into federal trust and approval of a gaming management contract for a tribal casino-hotel development at the transferred site are proposed. The probably would be taken into federal trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, while the National Indian Gaming Commission would approve the contract with the applicant, the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin. The result would be the construction and operation of a casino-hotel complex at the transferred site. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative A) would provide for the abovementioned transfer of land and establishment of the Commission-Tribe contract, allowing the development of the casino-hotel complex, while maintaining an existing greyhound racetrack, structure, concourse, and kennel facilities. Regional access to the complex would continue to be provided by Interstate 94, while 60th Street would provide emergency access. Other action alternatives include an alternative site, a reduced development intensity alternative, and the development of a complex including a hotel and conference center, supported by recreational facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The two proposed actions would allow the Tribe to develop an enterprise that would generate substantial net economic revenues, in turn, improving the long-term economic conditions of the Tribe and its members. Revenues generated by the economic development would be used to support social and educational programs for Tribe members. In addition to promoting economic development, the self-governance capacity of the Tribe would be enhanced through the development of tribal land. The non-Indian population of the area would enjoy knock-on benefits, particularly in the area of health status improvements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Casino and hotel development would result in the destruction of vegetation and disturbance of soils and associated wildlife habitat. New competition would affect other tribal gaming operations in the region, particularly the Forrest County Potawatomi casino in Milwaukee. Local and regional traffic levels would increase significantly, with no new expansion of transportation facilities proposed. Local and regional air quality would decline somewhat due to increase motor vehicle traffic in the area. Additional pressure would be placed on local services and infrastructure. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050382, 473 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Manufacturing KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366872?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MENOMINEE+CASINO-HOTEL%2C+223-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=MENOMINEE+CASINO-HOTEL%2C+223-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Spelling, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36365067; 050131F-050412_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of approximately 127 miles of US 6 from Interstate 15 (I-15) in Spanish Fork to I-70 near Green River in Utah, Wasatch, Carbon, and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. US 6 constitutes a part of the national highway system and operates as a major east-west highway serving an important statewide transportation function by linking two major interstates, I-15 and I-70. US 6 is an important link between the rural communities of central and southeastern Utah and the populous Wasatch Front. Segments of US were constructed over 60 years ago and do not meet current safety design requirements. The increased travel demand on US 6 due to population growth along the Wasatch Front has resulted in a decreased level of service that does not meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials guidance for a highway of this class. Design flaws and increased traffic volumes have resulted in unacceptable accident and fatality rates for a roadway of this type. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2004. The Passing Lane Alternative would add passing lanes at selected locations along the corridor. This alternative would provide four-lane sections in areas on both sides of the highway where passing is required. The Four Lane Alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction through the entire corridor. Under either action alternative, existing substandard design elements would be upgraded to current design standards and median barriers or other median treatments would be added as appropriate. The Peerless port of entry would e relocated to improve safety as a component of either action alternative. Costs of the Passing Lane and Four Lane alternatives are estimated at $595.8 million and $678.4 million, respectively. The draft supplement of January 2005 to the draft EIS addresses the Four Lane Alternative, as well as impacts to air quality, water quality, wetlands, and mitigation measures. This final EIS continues to propose widening of US 6 from I-15 to I-70 via one of the two aforementioned action alternatives, while considering a No Action Alternative for comparison purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the highway to allow it to meet current design standards while reducing both the overall accident and fatality rates. The proposed action would also reduce overall congestion, generally improve the level of service, and maintain the highway as a key component of Utah's transportation network. Either action alternative would improve the level of service to C or better. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Passing Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7,7 acres of wetlands, 1,779 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. Travel times under this alternative would be greater than under the Four Lane Alternative, increasing user costs, and a few segments of the highway would provide an unacceptable level of service. The Four-Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7.7 acres {4-41} of wetlands, 2,153 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. This alternative would increase impervious surface within the corridor significantly more than the Passing Lane Alternative. Either alternative would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at 96 sensitive receptor sites. Either alternative would affect the federally protected Ute ladies'-tresses, clay phacelia, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker, as well as two state-listed bird species; 10 significant historical, three significant archaeological, eight significant architectural, and one significant paleontological sites; disturb 11 potential hazardous waste 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.), 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 05-0228D, Volume 29, Number 2 and 05-0418D, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050412, 573 pages and maps, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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, 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/36365067?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - COLORADO RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36364428; 050076F-050470_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan to addresses recreational uses of the 277-mile section of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. For the purposes of the planning effort, the river has been divided into two geographic sections, with a specific set of alternatives for each section. For the upper section, extending from Lees Ferry at River Mile (RM) 0 to Diamond Creek at RM 226, this final EIS considers eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). The upper section alternatives represent different mixes and limits of group size, trip length, launches per day, user-days, seasonal variations, motorized and non-motorized use, commercial and noncommercial use, and other factors. Major issues addressed by the alternatives include those related to the appropriate level of visitor use consistent with natural and cultural resource protection and visitor experience goals; allocation of use between commercial and noncommercial groups; the noncommercial permit system; the level of motorized and non-motorized boat use; the range of services provided to the public; the use of helicopters to transport river passengers to and from the river; and appropriate levels and types of upstream travel from Lake Mead. The preferred alternative (Alternative H, Modified) provides for a mix of motorized and non-motorized use, a six-month non-motorized use season, more evenly distributed launch patterns, and changes to allocation and permit systems. For the lower section, extending from Diamond Creek to Lake Mead at RM 227, the EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). The park shares a common boundary with the Hualapai Tribe along 108 miles of the river, and the Tribe is a cooperating agency in the preparation of this final EIS, which includes an alternative identified as preferred by the Tribe. Major differences distinguishing lower section alternatives include limits on commercial launches from Diamond Creek, pontoon boat operations in the Quartermaster area, and facilities and upriver travel from Lake Mead. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4, Modified) is the same as the Hualapai Tribe's preferred alternative (Alternative 5) except for the lower than current averages of pontoon boat operations and the allowance of upriver travel to Separation Canyon at full lake levels. Alternative 5 would have much higher than current levels of pontoon boat operations and would restrict upriver travel to below RM 273. Both lower section alternatives would reduce current commercial group sized and allow more overnight use in the section extending from Diamond Creek to Quartermaster. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternatives would provide for appropriately controlled access to the river within Grand Canyon National Park, providing extensive recreational opportunities in a variety of water-related environments while protecting natural resources, particularly wilderness values, associated with the Grand Canyon. Expanded use of the corridor would enhance the local economies along the affected section of the river. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Motorized and non-motorized users of the river would occasionally come into conflict. Increased visitation would place additional stress on natural and cultural resources as well as park management and operations resources. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978 (I6 U.S.C. 1a-1) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0190D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050470, Volume 1--275 pages, Volume 2--652 pages, Volume 3--427 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Lakes KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wilderness KW - Arizona KW - Colorado River KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - Lake Mead KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364428?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COLORADO+RIVER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=COLORADO+RIVER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN DIABLO MOUNTAIN RANGE AND CENTRAL COAST OF CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SOUTHERN DIABLO MOUNTAIN RANGE AND CENTRAL COAST OF CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 36364280; 050059D-050425_0001 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 Wild land Fire Policy. 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 conservation of natural resources, maintenance of functioning natural systems, and restoration of natural systems that are degraded. Management would focus on protecting sensitive resources, while limiting or excluding certain resource uses in sensitive areas. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would balance resource conservation and ecosystem health with the production of commodities and with public use of the land. This alternative would focus on collaborative arrangements with landowners, permit holders, and other land managers to provide opportunities to produce commodities from natural resources and to use the land for public purposes on a sustainable basis while maintaining key ecological, visual, and recreational values. Alternative D would emphasize the production of natural resources commodities and public use opportunities. Resource uses such as recreation, grazing, mining, and oil/gas leasing, would be emphasized. 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.). JF - EPA number: 050425, 599 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2005-014+1790-1600 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/36364280?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+DIABLO+MOUNTAIN+RANGE+AND+CENTRAL+COAST+OF+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+DIABLO+MOUNTAIN+RANGE+AND+CENTRAL+COAST+OF+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hollister, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE INTEGRATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, IDAHO. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE INTEGRATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, IDAHO. AN - 36364236; 050031D-050397_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a programmatic integrated resource management plan is proposed for the Cour d'Alane Tribe's reservation in the Coeur d'Alene Basin of the western Rocky Mountains in Idaho. The management plan would establish 100-year desired future conditions and 20-year management goals for land use, natural resource enhancement and protection, residential and commercial development, and cultural preservation. More specifically, the long-term desired conditions and short-term goals address subsistence activities; the rural character of the reservation; maintenance and restoration of wetlands, riparian areas, streams, and forested land; limitation of subdivision of property in all management areas excepting areas designated for such development; provision of a land use plan, with provisions for shoreline management, for the reservation; provision of open space plans for reservation watersheds; and implementation of principles of conservation zoning to require conservation of open space identified in the plans when property was development. The plan would provide measures addressing development of commercial, industrial, residential, recreational, and administrative facilities. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing ad hoc management approach, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would implement the integrated resource management plan outlined above. Land use allocations would designate of 11,136 acres for development, 76,149 acres of conservation set asides, 51,123 acres for rural uses, 92,565 acres for agricultural development, and 95,558 acres for forest uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The current rural condition of the reservation of the reservation would be preserved over the long-term. The natural, cultural, and economic needs of the Tribe would be protected and enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development activities would result in some habitat loss and fragmentation and declines in native species. The alteration of resource conditions could affect subsistence activities and other culturally significant values of Tribe members. Riparian habitat, wetlands, and shoreline areas would be degraded and displaced. JF - EPA number: 050397, Summary--54 pages, Draft EIS--415 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agriculture KW - Commercial Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Housing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Industrial Districts KW - Land Management KW - Open Space KW - Shores KW - Streams KW - Subsistence KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COEUR+D%27ALENE+TRIBE+INTEGRATED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=COEUR+D%27ALENE+TRIBE+INTEGRATED+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 Indian Affairs, Plummer, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTHWESTERN ARIZONA AND EASTERN CALIFORNIA. AN - 16354736; 11763 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised land and resource management plan for the Lake Havadu Field Office (LHFO) area of northwestern Arizona and eastern California is proposed. The area encompasses 1.3 million acres of public lands along the Colorado River and east to Alamo Dam and the Harcuvar Mountains. Currently, the LHFO manages resources under portions of four different land use plans: the Yuma District Resource Management Plan (1987), the Kingman Resource Area Resource Management Plan (1995), the Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (1988), and the Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (1983). This proposed management plan would combine the relevant portions of those documents and updates the plan with issues and concerns identified during the public scoping process. Key issues identified during scoping include the identification of lands available for disposal, management of recreation and public access, designation and management of special area designations, management of areas having wilderness characteristics, management of wild burros around Lake Alamo, and the Bureau of Land Management's role in the management of Lake Havasu. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 emphasizes preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreation and resource development. Alternative 4 makes land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural settings than in Alternative 2. Alternative 5, the agency Preferred Alternative, provides for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. The alternative would focus on the following 14 topics and the potential decisions needed to influence future actions: Biological Resources (including special status species, aquatic species, vegetation, wildlife habitat management); cultural resources; fire management; grazing; the Lake Havasu Regional Management Area; lands and realty (including use authorizations, disposals and acquisition of public lands); mineral management; paleontological resources; public lands with wilderness characteristics; recreation; special area designations, including areas of critical environmental concern, wilderness areas, proposed wild and scenic river segments, and backcountry byways; transportation and public access; visual resources; and, wild horse and burros. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations by protecting natural resources while providing access to users of these resources for commercial and recreational purposes. A multiple-use, sustained yield approach would be certain to balance resource use against preservation and continued viability of both the various ecosystems and the exploitation of extractable resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management activities, extraction of minerals and other resources, and other commercial and recreational uses would impact cultural and paleontological resources, biological resources, recreational users, public access and transportation, land ownership patterns, wildlife, pasture for livestock grazing, special areas, areas eligible for wilderness designation, mineral accessibility, visual aesthetics, and the socioeconomic situation of residents and other users. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050400, Volume I--470 pages, Volume II--500 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Lake Havadu 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/16354736?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAKE+HAVASU+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTHWESTERN+ARIZONA+AND+EASTERN+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LAKE+HAVASU+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTHWESTERN+ARIZONA+AND+EASTERN+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Lake Havasu City, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN DIABLO MOUNTAIN RANGE AND CENTRAL COAST OF CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 16354258; 11771 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 Wild land Fire Policy. 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 conservation of natural resources, maintenance of functioning natural systems, and restoration of natural systems that are degraded. Management would focus on protecting sensitive resources, while limiting or excluding certain resource uses in sensitive areas. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would balance resource conservation and ecosystem health with the production of commodities and with public use of the land. This alternative would focus on collaborative arrangements with landowners, permit holders, and other land managers to provide opportunities to produce commodities from natural resources and to use the land for public purposes on a sustainable basis while maintaining key ecological, visual, and recreational values. Alternative D would emphasize the production of natural resources commodities and public use opportunities. Resource uses such as recreation, grazing, mining, and oil/gas leasing, would be emphasized. 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.). JF - EPA number: 050425, 599 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2005-014+1790-1600 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Control KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Management KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/16354258?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+DIABLO+MOUNTAIN+RANGE+AND+CENTRAL+COAST+OF+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+DIABLO+MOUNTAIN+RANGE+AND+CENTRAL+COAST+OF+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hollister, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 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. AN - 16354215; 11754 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a destination resort, including a hotel, conference center, casino, and parking facility, within a 213.5-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 draft 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 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. 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 even incorporated into the project design to address potential impacts associated with storm water runoff. Clearing of vegetation, grading o 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.). JF - EPA number: 050396, Draft EIS--281 pages, Appendices--720 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Research and Development KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Trails KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16354215?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THYE UKIAH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16354102; 11742 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan (RMP) for the Ukiah Resource Management Area of Marin, Solano, Sonoma, Mendocino, Lake, Napa, Yolo, Colusa, and Glenn counties, California is proposed. The plan, which would take effect in 2006 and remain in effect until 2026, would address 270,000 acres of public land and 214,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate within the jurisdiction of the Ukiah Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The RMP would address management issues related to visual resources, wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, riparian and wetland habitats, social and economic conditions, cultural resources, special use areas, forest resources, livestock grazing, the fire regime, mineral resources, wind energy, travel options and route designations, recreation resources, soil resources, and air quality. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to conflicts among motorized, mechanized, and non-motorized/non- mechanized recreationists; protection of sensitive natural and cultural resources from impacts due to increased recreational use and other land uses; provision of guidance for wind energy development; 1. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative d) would include the following Areas of Crucial Environmental Concern (ACECs): Cache Creek ACEC--10,000 acres (existing); Northern California Chaparral RNA (11,206 acres), Indian Valley Brodiaea ACEC (100 acres, currently 40 acres), Cedar Roughs ACEC/Resource Natural Area (6,350 acres, currently 5,567 acres), Knoxville ACEC (5,236 acres), Stornetta ACEC (887 acres), Walker Ridge ACEC (3,990 acres), The Cedars ACEC (1,500 acres), Black Forest ACEC (239 acres); and Lost Valley ACEC (40 acres). Two additional ACECs, namely the Blue Ridge ACEC- (13,640 acres) and Quail Ridge ACEC (558 acres) were considered but not included in the preferred alternative. Use of public lands within these ACECs would vary, depending on the resources and/or values identified, but would likely include limitations on off-highway vehicle use and development projects. Wild and scenic rivers and wilderness areas would be designated or proposed and managed accordingly. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred RMP would enable the BLM to provide access to the management area for minerals extraction, wind energy and geothermal resource development, and other commercially viable natural resource exploitation, as well as recreational uses, while protecting fragile environments against undue encroachment. ACECs would receive particularly attention regarding fish and wildlife habitat and other vegetation and water resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploitation and recreational uses, particularly off-highway vehicle travel, would damage vegetation and disturb soils and otherwise contribute to the loss of habitat and the disturbance of wildlife. Land disturbance would increase erosion and sediment loads in receiving surface waters. Wind energy developments would have particular and controversial impacts on the visual and aural aesthetic environments. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050374, Draft EIS--441 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2005-01-1790-1600 KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Ukiah 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/16354102?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THYE+UKIAH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THYE+UKIAH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ukiah, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 16346645; 11530 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 naturally 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 draft 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.). JF - EPA number: 050203, 564 pages, Ma 20, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Chemicals KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Toxicity 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/16346645?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&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, Sedre-Wooley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: Ma 20, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEAN WATER COALITION SYSTEMS CONVEYANCE AND OPERATIONS PROGRAM, LAKE MEAD RECREATION AREA, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 16343235; 11764 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Clean Water Coalition (CWC) Systems Conveyance and Operations Program (SCOP) for the Lake Meade Recreational Area of Boulder County, Nevada is proposed. The quantity of effluent treated and discharged in the Las Vegas Valley (Valley) will increase as the population of the Valley increases. Forecasts indicate that a combined maximum month flow of approximately 453 million gallons per day (mgd) of municipal wastewater will need to be treated and managed in the Las Vegas Valley by 2050 (Black & Veatch 2004a). The treatment and conveyance facilities must accommodate the additional flows while continuing to meet current or future water quality standards for the Las Vegas Wash, Las Vegas Bay, and Lake Mead. Currently, highly treated effluent is discharged to the Las Vegas Wash at the existing discharge locations. The City of Las Vegas, Clark County Water Reclamation District, and City of Henderson comprise the CWC, which was created to address the management of the increasing wastewater flows in the Las Vegas Valley, has proposed the SCOP. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to surface water hydrology, groundwater, water quality, biological resources/endangered species, cultural resources, recreation, land use, air quality, noise, and socioeconomics. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each alternative would provide a system of pipelines and tunnels that discharges highly treated wastewater effluent to an alternate location in Lake Mead. The SCOP system would be designed to collect the treated effluent flows from the three treatment facilities, for conveyance to an area in the lower Colorado River system, while the majority of the flows bypass the lower Las Vegas Wash. The SCOP would be located in Clark County, Nevada The system would include activities and infrastructure that would be located on lands owned and/or managed by the City of Las Vegas, City of Henderson, Clark County, United States (U.S.) Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), National Park Service (NPS), and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The action alternatives include the Boulder Islands North Alternative, Boulder Islands South Alternative, and Las Vegas Bay Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the pipeline would not be constructed. Highly treated effluent would continue to be discharged to the Las Vegas Wash at the existing discharge locations. The three agencies currently responsible for municipal wastewater treatment and discharge would expand and optimize their facilities to handle the increasing quantities of wastewater through 2050. Facility additions would occur on lands currently owned by the cities and county. Under the Boulder Islands North Alternative, a pipeline would be constructed that collects and transports highly treated effluent from the three treatment facilities to a receiving area in the vicinity of Boulder Islands. The Boulder Islands North Alternative includes the generation of electricity at a hydroelectric generation facility to be located on NPS land. Under the Boulder Islands South Alternative, a pipeline would be constructed that collects and transports highly treated effluent from the three treatment facilities to a receiving area in the vicinity of Boulder Islands, but there would be no power generation facility. Under the Las Vegas Bay Alternative, a pipeline would be constructed that collects and transports highly treated effluent from the three treatment facilities to a receiving area in the Las Vegas Bay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SCOP would meet current and future water quality standards for known pollutants, and as yet unknown standards for additional contaminants that may be regulated in the future; protect and enhance the Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA) by continuing to meet beneficial uses and recreational and resource values of the LMNRA, while more than doubling the treated effluent flows discharged to Lake Mead; accommodate Lake Mead's lowering water levels, which are important because the amount of mixing and dilution available in the inner Las Vegas Bay are also decreasing as the Lake level decreases; and reduce the degradation of source-water quality at the Southern Nevada Water System intake structures. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in the temporary displacement of wildlife species as well as disturbance, loss, or damage to individual plants and the seed bank. The SCOP would reduce the extent of habitat available to aquatic fauna. Project activities could result in removal of eligible cultural and paleontological resource sites from the landscape, some recreation areas would be inaccessible to the public during construction, and visual aesthetics would be marred by SCOP structures. Construction workers could encounter perchlorate contaminated groundwater 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 Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050405, 837 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Colorado River KW - Lake Mead KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance 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/16343235?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEAN+WATER+COALITION+SYSTEMS+CONVEYANCE+AND+OPERATIONS+PROGRAM%2C+LAKE+MEAD+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLEAN+WATER+COALITION+SYSTEMS+CONVEYANCE+AND+OPERATIONS+PROGRAM%2C+LAKE+MEAD+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bolder City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK, NORTH UNIT, JACKSON, PENNINGTON, AND SHANNON COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA. AN - 16343056; 11724 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of revised a general management plan fr the North Unit of Badlands National Park in Jackson, Pennington, and Shannon counties, South Dakota is proposed. The plan would guide management of the unit over the next 15 to 20 years. The park encompasses 243,000 acres and features outstanding and unique scenic values, paleontologic resources, and natural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, would offer a range of high-quality visitor opportunities and improved facilities while ensuring the protection of natural and cultural resources. Additional facilities would be developed so that amenities and interpretive locations would be better dispersed throughout the park. A visitor contact station would be established near Pinnacles, making it possible for visitors to obtain information about the park upon entry from the west. Another contact station would be established in the town of Scenic through lease or partnership with another entity. More hiking trails and routes would be provided. The plan would include the acquisition of 5,400 acres along South Dakota Highway 44 to protect additional prairie and badlands features as well as the acquisition of 4,500 acres along the western edge of the park's North Unit, adjacent to the wilderness area. Costs of capital improvements and costs of annual operations are estimated at $3.3 million and $3.5 million, respectively. Alternative C would focus on resource protection, with some improvements for visitors' use of the park. Alternative D would focus on education and on the research value of the park. Resource preservation would remain a key management mandate under any alternative. All action alternatives would also include realignment of the the Loop Road trough the park. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would offer a range of high-quality visitor opportunities and improve the stewardship of park resources. The quality and range of visitor experiences would be enhanced, while educational and recreational opportunities would be designed to extend the average time each visitor spends in the park. Management zoning would more effectively achieve long-term goals for resource conditions. Land acquisition would add habitat for bison and for restoration of black-footed ferret, one of North America's most endangered mammals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Human uses and construction of new facilities would result in minor adverse impacts on natural resource in some areas throughout the park. The impacts on wildlife, vegetation, and visitor experiences would be unavoidable. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). JF - EPA number: 050445, 281 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-60 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Geologic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Badlands National Park KW - South Dakota KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16343056?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+BADLANDS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+NORTH+UNIT%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENNINGTON%2C+AND+SHANNON+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+BADLANDS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+NORTH+UNIT%2C+JACKSON%2C+PENNINGTON%2C+AND+SHANNON+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, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KASHA-KATUWE TENT ROCKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, NEW MEXICO: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 16343007; 11783 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general resource management plan for the Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument of New Mexico is proposed. Located in north-central New Mexico in the foothills of the Jemez Mountains on the Pajarito Plateau, the 5,395-acre national monument is situated in Sandoval County about 5 miles west of the Rio Grande. It lies about 35 miles southwest of Santa Fe and 52 miles northeast of Albuquerque The proposal at hand provides alternatives for managing the natural and cultural resources and uses in the national monument, which was designated by Presidential Proclamation 7394 in 2001.Before its designation as a national monument, the area was designated by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as an area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) through the Rio Puerco Resource Management Plan of 1986, maintained and reprinted, with amendments, in 1992, to protect its unique geologic formations, and scenic and cultural values. The BLM initiated a management agreement with the Pueblo de Cochiti tribe in 1997. In 2000, the two entities signed an Inter-Government Cooperative Agreement to provide for more consistent, effective and collaborative management of the Tent Rocks ACEC. Key issues addressed during scoping for the proposed general management plan include those related to land tenure adjustments, access and transportation, recreational activities, and traditional cultural practices and uses of Native Americans. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B, which is the proposed action, would focus on arranging resource allocations that would resolve the resource use issues and management concerns associated with the monument, while complying with the proclamation and current BLM policies, initiatives and guidance. Alternative C would emphasize an adaptive management approach (particularly for recreation management) with the inclusion of additional monitoring. Of the three alternatives, this alternative represents the highest accommodation of visitor access to and within the monument and highest potential for facility development. The goals for the monitoring and evaluation program would be to provide the basis for long-term adaptive management changes and ongoing planning. The monitoring results would trigger management changes to maximize recreational use, facility development, and the visitors' beneficial experiences while minimizing natural resource degradation and depletion. All management alternatives would address access and transportation, air quality, Native American uses and traditional practices, cultural resources, environmental justice, fire management, hazardous materials and solid wastes, land and realty, livestock grazing, noxious weed control, paleontological resources, recreational uses, soil and water resources, federally protected wildlife species, vegetation and woodland management, and visual resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: As dictated by the Presidential Proclamation, the proposed management plan would establish a regime designed to protect geologic, cultural, and biological objects of interest and to provide an opportunity to observe, study, and experience the unique geologic processes found in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The level of road intrusion on culturally important traditional activities of .local Native Americans, as well as on recreationists and residents who value the pristine wilderness values within the area., would decline but would not be eliminated. Approximately 241 acres of intensive use area would likewise affect the solitude and primitiveness values of the monument and would result in trampling of vegetation and soil erosion and compaction. The construction of 7.92 miles of trail would result in the destruction of vegetation and exacerbate erosion and sedimentation within trail corridors. At the same time, closure of roads and trails would limit access to some areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7394. JF - EPA number: 050452, 231 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-57 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Property Disposition KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7394, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16343007?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KASHA-KATUWE+TENT+ROCKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+NEW+MEXICO%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=KASHA-KATUWE+TENT+ROCKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Santa Fe, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT, BLAINE, CHOUTEAU, FERGUS, AND PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA: RESORUCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 16339896; 11781 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.) JF - EPA number: 050448, 544 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-61 KW - Aircraft KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Exploration KW - Fires KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management 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/16339896?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&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+RESORUCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER+BREAKS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BLAINE%2C+CHOUTEAU%2C+FERGUS%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA%3A+RESORUCE+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASTLE PEAK AND EIGHTMILE FLAT OIL AND GAS EXPANSION PROJECT, DUCHESNE AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 16339852; 11773 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Cattle Peak and Eightmile Flat Oil and Gas Expansion Project in Duchesne and Uintah counties of northeastern Utah is proposed. The project would involve drilling and production operations or the exploitation of oil and gas resources, along with ancillary facilities, including access roads, pipelines, and protection facilities. The project would constitute an expansion of existing waterflood oil recovery activities undertaken by the applicant, Inland Resources Inc., in the project area. The expansion would encompass 64,000 acres, with project-associated surface disturbance limited to 3,700 acres. The development would occur primarily on public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the state of Utah. Currently, the project area includes 671 production and injection wells. The proposed new drilling would kcreate an additional 973 wells over a 12-year period. The applicant would drill an additional 70 to 130 wells per year until the resource base was fully developed. The enw wells would be drilled on a 40-acre spacing pattern to recover oil and gas reserves from the Green River Formation at depths of 4,500 to 6,500 feet. The applicant would drill approximately 50 percent of the wells as production wells and the remainder as injection wells. To increase the crude oil recovery rate from this field, the applicant would inject water under pressure into the oil-bearing formation to force out a greater quantity of oil than would be produced with conventional pumping. Water for the project would be supplied via existing Water District contracts, the Green River, and various oil- and water-bearing reservoirs within the Green River Formation underlying the field. At peak usage, the project would require 2,333 acre-feet per year. Project facilities would include 83 miles of new and upgraded roads and 80 acres of injection water distribution lines, gas gathering pipelines, pumps, and oil storage tanks. The applicant would implement voluntary environmental measures to address sensitive cultural and paleontological resources, livestock grazing, noxious weeds, special status species habitats, aesthetics, and hazardous materials. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers an action alternative (Alternative A) and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would involve the drilling of 922 wells, 51 fewer wells than planned under the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Exploitation of the well field would yield 5,071 barrels of crude oil and 6.5 million cubic feet of saleable natural gas per day, ensuring a reliable supply of gas to the region and reducing the nation's reliance on foreign sources of oil and gas. Expansion of the well field would employ an addition 162 workers and 47 support jobs within the community. Federal oil and gas royalties would amount to $6.1 million per year, and annual county receipts would amount to $3.8 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Well field injection wells would consume 1,942 acre-feet of water per year from the Green River alluvium. Approximately 263 wells and associated roads are located within 200 feet of wash channels, exposing them to damage from flooding. Approximately 1,171 acres of surface disturbance could occur on sites containing paleontological resources of potential high significance. Wells and ancillary facilities would disturb 3,582 acres of native shrubland habitats, most of which currently offer some value as wildlife habitat. Vegetation on 73 percent of the surface disturbance associated with the preferred alternative would require up to 50 years to recover due to poor soil conditions. Special status species to be affected would include plants, birds, riparian species, mammals, and fish. At maximum well field buildout, 333 livestock and wildlife animal unit months (AUMs) out of a total of 11,316 AUMs would be unavailable each year over the life of the project, and minor changes in seasonal stocking rates could occur on three allotments. 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 05-0141D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050429, 621 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/UT-080-2002-168 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Flood Hazards KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Utah KW - Diamond Mountain 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/16339852?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASTLE+PEAK+AND+EIGHTMILE+FLAT+OIL+AND+GAS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE+AND+UINTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=CASTLE+PEAK+AND+EIGHTMILE+FLAT+OIL+AND+GAS+EXPANSION+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, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FIRST LADIES NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, CANTON, OHIO: GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 16339785; 11757 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the First Ladies National Historic Site in Canton, Ohio is proposed. The site was established in 2000 to preserve and interpret the role and history of wives of presidents of the United States for the benefit, inspiration, and education of the public. The site encompasses a 0.33-acre tract in downtown Canton, which includes a 19th Century structure, known as the Ida Saxton McKinley House and the City National Bank Building. The enabling legislation anticipates that the City National Bank Building, which houses the Educational Resource Center (ERC), would be acquired by the National Park System through donation from the National First Ladies Library (NFLL). At the time of acquisition, the boundary would be expanded to include the City National Bank Building. The National Park Service (NPS) could accept donations of land that were not included in the enabling legislation, but congressional legislation would be required before any such land could be included within the site boundary. Since the NPS anticipates that the NFLL might, at some point, wish to donate the Rotary Park and parking lot to the NPS, this document includes a boundary assessment that considers adjusting the park boundary to include these two properties. The site has no approved long-term management plan at present; the proposed plan would direct management of the site for the next 15 to 20 years. Three alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A would provide interpretation of the roads and significance of First Ladies through partnerships with women's history sites, the White House, historical societies, First Ladies organizations, and other interested organizations for such resources as e-biographies, museum collections, exhibits, interpretive programs, curriculum-based education, and research. Local businesses would provide services such as parking, transportation, promotional materials, and grounds maintenance. The Saxton-McKinley House and the ERC would be available for use by the NFLL, NPS, and future partners. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a wide variety of methods to interpret the significance of First Ladies and their public roles and private lives. Emphasis would be placed on encouraging self-discovery and self-directed learning through experiential activities while on site. There would be a robust outreach program aimed at a broad range of potential visitors, from the unscheduled casual visitor to the vocational historian, museum curator, historic preservationist, and school group. Alternative C would combine elements of traditional on-site visitation with an emphasis on scholarly research on the roles and impacts of the First Ladies and associated events. To achieve this concept, the NFLL would actively seek accreditation for the ERC as a research facility and would seek museum accreditation for the Saxin-McKinley House. The library collection soul be an internationally known, comprehensive annotated electronic bibliographic library augmented by a collection containing printed material and small personal artifacts associated with each of the First Ladies. The target audience would be researchers. Including the costs of accreditation of the McKinley House as a museum, the 20-year cost of site establishment and management have been estimated at $14.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred management plan would provide a comprehensive management framework to guide resource preservation, visitor use, and administration of the site. As appropriate, specific actions and particular program implementation and prioritization would be left for decision makers once a firm structure is established under the open-ended planning approach. This approach would constitute adaptive management, responding to the needs of the public and the scholarly community. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: NONE. LEGAL MANDATES: First Ladies National Historic Site Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-291) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050404, 68 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 05-49 KW - Buildings KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Museums KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - First Ladies National Historic Site KW - Ohio KW - First Ladies National Historic Site Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16339785?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FIRST+LADIES+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+CANTON%2C+OHIO%3A+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=FIRST+LADIES+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+CANTON%2C+OHIO%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, Mentor, Ohio; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER -