Proposed Action and Alternatives. The EPA and IBWC’s Proposed Action is the implementation of projects to address impacts from transboundary flows in the Tijuana River watershed and adjacent coastal areas. Because of the programmatic nature of the decisions to be made, only the Core projects could be implemented at the completion of this NEPA process. The Supplemental projects would require additional tiered review before being implemented. The Proposed Action addresses the purpose and need stated above by: • Reducing the generation and/or discharge of contaminated flows from point and nonpoint sources of pollution in the Tijuana region, • Improving the collection and/or treatment of contaminated flows in the Tijuana region before they reach the U.S.-Mexico border, and • Improving the collection and/or treatment of contaminated transboundary flows in the U.S. The Draft PEIS evaluates a No-Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing the Proposed Action:
Proposed Action and Alternatives. The proposed action has been submitted by Summit County. The Prime Consultant, with full involvement of the Forest Service IDT, will develop design criteria, mitigation and/or alternatives to address natural resource and social issues arising from the proposed action in order to address and mitigate all internal resource concerns prior to soliciting external public input. Scoping and Agency Coordination. Comments and concerns will be solicited from stakeholders including Colorado Parks and Wildlife, US Fish and Wildlife, Wilderness Workshop, Colorado Department of Transportation, Lake and Summit Counties, etc. As identified through this scoping process, issues of relevance will be identified and potential sources of information will be identified for use in preparation of the EA. Depending on the public interest, one or more public meetings to refine the proposed action may occur. However, the Project Manager will be responsible for actually conducting meetings. Prime Consultant participation is essentially providing continuity as part of the “working group.” Data Collection. Some of the data will be collected from existing sources, and some will require surveys. Existing data sources will include maps, inventories and records related to environmental issues, including vegetation, archeological issues and historic properties, and, current state-sensitive and federal TES species lists. Because critical information and policies change frequently, the Prime Consultant is strongly encouraged to interact with WRNF resource specialists as often as needed to ensure the acquisition of the most current data available. The Forest Service will collect lynx and other wildlife data from winter monitoring transects and cameras during the 2015-2016 winter. The Forest Service will also collect fish, boreal toad and invertebrate data during the summer of 2016. Other information acquired from agencies and stakeholders will be evaluated and assimilated into the EA as appropriate. In addition, the Prime Consultant will coordinate with the WRNF technical staff to acquire site-specific information, if needed. Because of the potential for development of a second action alternative, the Prime Consultant should anticipate the need for additional survey work associated with assessing the environmental consequences of that alternative including: field verification of overstory vegetation, botany surveys, archaeological surveys, geologic hazards, hydrologic response and efficacy of d...
Proposed Action and Alternatives a) Alternative 1 – Access via Xxxx Road (Road No. 16-6-31) and Private Road:
Proposed Action and Alternatives. 2.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action MMC currently operates the Marigold Mine located approximately three miles south of Valmy, Nevada. MMC is authorized to conduct open-pit gold mining operations within a 26,447-acre Plan boundary for up to 8,144 acres of surface disturbance (BLM 2019a). MMC was previously authorized to create three open pits by combining up to seven smaller pits, process ore via standard heap xxxxx practices, and stack waste rock in overburden piles (BLM 2019a). Authorized mine features are shown on Figure 2. The Project would be located entirely within the previously authorized Plan boundary. Total new disturbance proposed is approximately 1,092 acres. This would result in a total disturbance within the Plan boundary of 9,235.8 acres, with 4,163.7 on public land and 5,072.1 on private land. A complete breakdown of surface disturbance acreages, including authorized and proposed, is provided in Table 4. Under Alternative A – Proposed Action, MMC proposes the following developments and changes in the Project POA: • Development of the Mud Pit, as an expansion of the existing Northwest 29 and Mud pits. • Expansion of the Valmy Pit. • Development of the New Millennium Pit as an expansion of the existing Antler and Basalt pits. • Partial or complete backfilling of the new pits. • Modification of the Northwest WRSA and the Valmy WRSAs. • Incorporation of the Northeast WRSA into the Northwest WRSA. • Elimination of the South WRSA. • The installation of an additional above-ground powerline. • Modification of haul road routes and configurations. • The addition of a stock water trough and access road as a mitigation measure. • The addition of infill disturbance. • Development of the Cell 23D and Cell 25 heap xxxxx pads, with alterations to a portion of authorized existing Cell 23, referred to as Cell 23C. • The addition of one process pond. • Changes to ancillary facilities including growth media stockpiles, stormwater diversions, and fencing. Areas proposed for surface disturbance associated with the Proposed Action are shown on Figure 3, and the Proposed Action with the authorized mine features is shown on Figure 4. The Proposed Action would not extend the mine life or change personnel numbers. The Proposed Action would provide additional operational flexibility for the currently authorized mining activities through 2037.
Proposed Action and Alternatives. The Proposed Action would implement Montana’s Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Agreement. Current agricultural production practices would be discontinued on up to 10,082 acres of eligible farmland in the Upper Xxxxx Fork River Basin from production and establish approved conservation practices on the land. Producers would enroll eligible farmland by entering into contracts of up to 15 years with the Farm Service Agency. Conservation practices would be established and maintained on enrolled lands for the contract duration. Producers would receive annual rental payments for the duration of the contracts as well as financial and technical support for implementing and maintaining the practices. For lands enrolled in the program, annual rental payments would be the sum of the base soil rental rate, an incentive payment, and an annual maintenance rate. Eligible lands exclude riparian acres that are currently targeted for Superfund remediation and restoration due to water quality degradation due to historic mining operations. This Programmatic Environmental Assessment documents the analysis of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, no lands would be enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. None of the conservation practices or rental payments described above would be implemented. Summary of Environmental Consequences It is expected that there would be both positive and temporary minor negative impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Action. A summary of the potential impacts is given in Table ES-1. Table ES-1 - Summary of Environmental Consequences Resource Proposed Action No Action Alternative Biological Resources Beneficial long term impacts to biological resources are expected to occur. The Proposed Action is expected to contribute to vegetation and wildlife diversity and to reduce the incidence of exotic and invasive species. Grassland birds and other wildlife would benefit from additional habitat. Fisheries would benefit from increased water quantity and quality. Long term positive impacts to threatened and endangered species, species of concern, and their habitats are expected. It is possible that temporary minor impacts to vegetation, wildlife, and protected species could occur during activities associated with establishing conservation practices. Continued use of lands for range and pastureland would decrease the quality of fisheries through degraded water quality and qua...
Proposed Action and Alternatives. The proposed action is for the United States to execute an Agreement concerning the Administration of Water Pursuant to the Subordination of Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx Unit Water Rights within the Upper Gunnison River Basin (Agreement). A draft copy of this Agreement is attached. The Agreement is not a water supply contract or sale; it does not provide water to anyone; it formalizes past commitments and provides a plan on how to manage, track, record and account for water depletions. The alternative to the proposed action is the No Action alternative, which simply is not signing the Agreement. Under the No Action alternative, Reclamation would have to develop some type of system to track depletions to assure the 60,000 acre-foot allowance was not exceeded. This system could involve individual contracts with water users. The proposed Agreement provides for the following: -the depletion allowance (up to 60,000 acre-feet) for the Aspinall Unit shall be implemented only pursuant to the Agreement; -the United States agrees to subordinate the Aspinall Unit=s water rights up to 60,000 acre- feet; by subordinating to the junior water rights in the basin upstream, the United States agrees that such in-basin water users may continue to divert when the United States places a call on the Gunnison River under the Aspinall Unit=s water rights; -the depletions against which the United States foregoes its right to call under this Agreement, shall be charged by the Colorado State Engineer against the annual fills of Aspinall Unit reservoirs, and/or the exercise of the related direct flow hydropower rights (depending on which of the Aspinall Unit rights are then being exercised); -the CRWCD and the District shall monitor and quantify depletions under this Agreement; -the Aspinall Unit reservoirs cannot be used in exchange or replacement of water or for any other purpose, without the additional approval of the United States; and -the utilization of water by the water users represented by the CRWCD and the District shall be subject to the laws of the State of Colorado regarding water use.
Proposed Action and Alternatives. Based on requests from the District, individual applicants and public input, two alternatives are analyzed for: a Proposed/Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative.
Proposed Action and Alternatives. The Proposed Action would implement Louisiana’s Coastal Prairie Restoration Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. Current agricultural production practices would be discontinued on up to 28,000 acres of eligible farmland and approved conservation practices would be established on the land. This document has been prepared to analyze the potential environmental of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, no lands would be enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. None of the conservation practices or rental payments described above would be implemented.
Proposed Action and Alternatives. Consistent with the 2019 Missile Defense Review, the DoD does not have a proposed action, budget authority, or direction to deploy a CIS and does not propose to deploy a CIS at this time; therefore, the preferred alternative is the ‘‘No Action Alternative’’—no deployment. Current sites in Alaska and California provide the necessary protection of the homeland from a ballistic missile attack by countries such as North Korea and Iran. If deployed, a CIS would be an
Proposed Action and Alternatives. 2.1 Project Description
