Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

This Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) analyzes the potential environmental effects associated with research and development of a Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system capability by the Department of Defense (DoD). The BMD Program seeks to develop systems and capabilities to protect the United States and areas of vital interest to the United States against the accidental or unauthorized launch of ballistic missiles. The BMD Program includes TMD and NMD initiatives under the direction of the BMDO. The TMD segment includes transportable systems to defend expeditionary elements of the Armed Forces of the United States deployed abroad, and to defend its friends and allies against short- and medium-range missiles. The BMD PEIS focuses on the research, development, and testing of NMD elements. It covers the potential cumulative impacts from the entire BMD Program, including TMD, because the technologies, testing, and development have potentially similar environmental effects. Ongoing NMD activities are currently part of a Technology Readiness Program to facilitate development of an effective NMD system on short notice. These activities are described as the Preferred Action. Several other alternatives are proposed for carrying the NMD system into the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase of the DoD system acquisition process. They are described as the System Acquisition Alternatives in this PEIS. TMD research, development, and testing activities would continue independent of the decision reached upon review of this PEIS. Potential environmental impacts beyond development and testing activities for the Alternatives to the Preferred Action are discussed to provide DoD decision makers with information on potential environmental impacts related to the life-cycle of full-system acquisition. This PElS serves as the foundation from which futur

This Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) analyzes the potential environmental effects associated with research and development of a Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system capability by the Department of Defense (DoD). The BMD Program seeks to develop systems and capabilities to protect the United States and areas of vital interest to the United States against the accidental or unauthorized launch of ballistic missiles. The BMD Program includes TMD and NMD initiatives under the direction of the BMDO. The TMD segment includes transportable systems to defend expeditionary elements of the Armed Forces of the United States deployed abroad, and to defend its friends and allies against short- and medium-range missiles. The BMD PEIS focuses on the research, development, and testing of NMD elements. It covers the potential cumulative impacts from the entire BMD Program, including TMD, because the technologies, testing, and development have potentially similar environmental effects. Ongoing NMD activities are currently part of a Technology Readiness Program to facilitate development of an effective NMD system on short notice. These activities are described as the Preferred Action. Several other alternatives are proposed for carrying the NMD system into the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase of the DoD system acquisition process. They are described as the System Acquisition Alternatives in this PEIS. TMD research, development, and testing activities would continue independent of the decision reached upon review of this PEIS. Potential environmental impacts beyond development and testing activities for the Alternatives to the Preferred Action are discussed to provide DoD decision makers with information on potential environmental impacts related to the life-cycle of full-system acquisition. This PElS serves as the foundation from which futur

This Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) analyzes the potential environmental effects associated with research and development of a Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system capability by the Department of Defense (DoD). The BMD Program seeks to develop systems and capabilities to protect the United States and areas of vital interest to the United States against the accidental or unauthorized launch of ballistic missiles. The BMD Program includes TMD and NMD initiatives under the direction of the BMDO. The TMD segment includes transportable systems to defend expeditionary elements of the Armed Forces of the United States deployed abroad, and to defend its friends and allies against short- and medium-range missiles. The BMD PEIS focuses on the research, development, and testing of NMD elements. It covers the potential cumulative impacts from the entire BMD Program, including TMD, because the technologies, testing, and development have potentially similar environmental effects. Ongoing NMD activities are currently part of a Technology Readiness Program to facilitate development of an effective NMD system on short notice. These activities are described as the Preferred Action. Several other alternatives are proposed for carrying the NMD system into the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase of the DoD system acquisition process. They are described as the System Acquisition Alternatives in this PEIS. TMD research, development, and testing activities would continue independent of the decision reached upon review of this PEIS. Potential environmental impacts beyond development and testing activities for the Alternatives to the Preferred Action are discussed to provide DoD decision makers with information on potential environmental impacts related to the life-cycle of full-system acquisition. This PElS serves as the foundation from which futur

This Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) comprehensively addresses proposed Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) activities at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), New Mexico. It addresses future DTRA testing activities and expands on the current testing parameters addressed in existing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. It includes a review of current operations and would serve as an environmental reference for future planning and development of various programs. The proposed action (and preferred alternative) is comprised of nine activity-related categories: 1) collateral effects testing using simulant materials; 2) rock penetration testing; 3) hard target lethality and defeat testing; 4) advanced weapons lethality testing; 5) static high explosives testing for target lethality; 6) weapons effects testing using the Large Blast/Thermal Simulator; 7) anti-terrorism testing; 8) development of weapon effects targets and test beds; and 9) improvements to the Permanent High Explosive Test Site (PHETS) Administrative Park. The no action alternative would effectively cap the magnitude and extent of DTRA activities on WSMR and reduce the Department of Defense capability to control and eliminate weapons of mass destruction. The Final PEIS analyzes the environmental consequences of the proposed action and the no action alternative. Environmental subject areas include soils, water, biological resources, cultural resources, airspace, air quality, socioeconomics, and infrastructure. A 60-day comment period beginning January 27 and ending March 28, 2006 was made available, in which the public had an opportunity to comment on the Draft PEIS. All comments have been addressed in the Final PEIS.

This Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) comprehensively addresses proposed Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) activities at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), New Mexico. It addresses future DTRA testing activities and expands on the current testing parameters addressed in existing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. It includes a review of current operations and would serve as an environmental reference for future planning and development of various programs. The proposed action (and preferred alternative) is comprised of nine activity-related categories: 1) collateral effects testing using simulant materials; 2) rock penetration testing; 3) hard target lethality and defeat testing; 4) advanced weapons lethality testing; 5) static high explosives testing for target lethality; 6) weapons effects testing using the Large Blast/Thermal Simulator; 7) anti-terrorism testing; 8) development of weapon effects targets and test beds; and 9) improvements to the Permanent High Explosive Test Site (PHETS) Administrative Park. The no action alternative would effectively cap the magnitude and extent of DTRA activities on WSMR and reduce the Department of Defense capability to control and eliminate weapons of mass destruction. The Final PEIS analyzes the environmental consequences of the proposed action and the no action alternative. Environmental subject areas include soils, water, biological resources, cultural resources, airspace, air quality, socioeconomics, and infrastructure. A 60-day comment period beginning January 27 and ending March 28, 2006 was made available, in which the public had an opportunity to comment on the Draft PEIS. All comments have been addressed in the Final PEIS.

"March 2006."

"March 2006."

"March 2006."

"March 2006."

This Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) evaluates the potential environmental impacts of activities associated with the development, testing, deployment, and planning for decommissioning of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). This PEIS considers the current technology components, assets, and programs that make up the proposed BMDS as well as the development and application of new technologies, and considers cumulative impacts of implementing the BMDS. A programmatic NEPA evaluation is the appropriate approach for projects that are large in scope, diverse geographically, and implemented in phases over many years. It provides the analytical framework that supports subsequent NEPA analysis of specific actions at specific locations within the overall system, i.e., tiering. The purpose of the proposed action is for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to incrementally develop and field a BMDS that layers defenses to intercept ballistic missiles of all ranges in all phases of flight. The proposed action is needed to protect the United States (U.S.), its deployed forces, friends, and allies from ballistic missile threats. The BMDS is a key component of U.S. policy for addressing ballistic missile threats worldwide.

This Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) evaluates the potential environmental impacts of activities associated with the development, testing, deployment, and planning for decommissioning of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). This PEIS considers the current technology components, assets, and programs that make up the proposed BMDS as well as the development and application of new technologies, and considers cumulative impacts of implementing the BMDS. A programmatic NEPA evaluation is the appropriate approach for projects that are large in scope, diverse geographically, and implemented in phases over many years. It provides the analytical framework that supports subsequent NEPA analysis of specific actions at specific locations within the overall system, i.e., tiering. The purpose of the proposed action is for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to incrementally develop and field a BMDS that layers defenses to intercept ballistic missiles of all ranges in all phases of flight. The proposed action is needed to protect the United States (U.S.), its deployed forces, friends, and allies from ballistic missile threats. The BMDS is a key component of U.S. policy for addressing ballistic missile threats worldwide.

This Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) evaluates the potential environmental impacts of activities associated with the development, testing, deployment, and planning for decommissioning of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). This PEIS considers the current technology components, assets, and programs that make up the proposed BMDS as well as the development and application of new technologies, and considers cumulative impacts of implementing the BMDS. A programmatic NEPA evaluation is the appropriate approach for projects that are large in scope, diverse geographically, and implemented in phases over many years. It provides the analytical framework that supports subsequent NEPA analysis of specific actions at specific locations within the overall system, i.e., tiering. The purpose of the proposed action is for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to incrementally develop and field a BMDS that layers defenses to intercept ballistic missiles of all ranges in all phases of flight. The proposed action is needed to protect the United States (U.S.), its deployed forces, friends, and allies from ballistic missile threats. The BMDS is a key component of U.S. policy for addressing ballistic missile threats worldwide.

This Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) evaluates the potential environmental impacts of activities associated with the development, testing, deployment, and planning for decommissioning of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). This PEIS considers the current technology components, assets, and programs that make up the proposed BMDS as well as the development and application of new technologies, and considers cumulative impacts of implementing the BMDS. A programmatic NEPA evaluation is the appropriate approach for projects that are large in scope, diverse geographically, and implemented in phases over many years. It provides the analytical framework that supports subsequent NEPA analysis of specific actions at specific locations within the overall system, i.e., tiering. The purpose of the proposed action is for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to incrementally develop and field a BMDS that layers defenses to intercept ballistic missiles of all ranges in all phases of flight. The proposed action is needed to protect the United States (U.S.), its deployed forces, friends, and allies from ballistic missile threats. The BMDS is a key component of U.S. policy for addressing ballistic missile threats worldwide.

Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico; The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coronado National Forest prepared this programmatic environmental impact statement to disclose the potential effects of a proposed action to revise the “Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (1986, as amended). The Coronado comprises 1,717,934 acres, most of which are located in southeastern Arizona, and 65,823 acres of which are in southwestern New Mexico. This document reports the results of an effects analysis of management direction in a no-action alternative (the existing 1986 forest plan); the proposed action (the revised forest plan) and two alternatives that specify the same management direction as the proposed action with the following exceptions: alternative 1 proposes 147,018 more acres be designated as wilderness; and alternative 2 proposes 40,255 more acres of lands to be managed for motorized recreation, provides limited direction regarding managing resources during climate change, and recommends no new special areas for designation. The proposed action is the preferred alternative.

Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico; The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coronado National Forest prepared this programmatic environmental impact statement to disclose the potential effects of a proposed action to revise the “Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (1986, as amended). The Coronado comprises 1,717,934 acres, most of which are located in southeastern Arizona, and 65,823 acres of which are in southwestern New Mexico. This document reports the results of an effects analysis of management direction in a no-action alternative (the existing 1986 forest plan); the proposed action (the revised forest plan) and two alternatives that specify the same management direction as the proposed action with the following exceptions: alternative 1 proposes 147,018 more acres be designated as wilderness; and alternative 2 proposes 40,255 more acres of lands to be managed for motorized recreation, provides limited direction regarding managing resources during climate change, and recommends no new special areas for designation. The proposed action is the preferred alternative.

Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico; The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coronado National Forest prepared this programmatic environmental impact statement to disclose the potential effects of a proposed action to revise the “Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (1986, as amended). The Coronado comprises 1,717,934 acres, most of which are located in southeastern Arizona, and 65,823 acres of which are in southwestern New Mexico. This document reports the results of an effects analysis of management direction in a no-action alternative (the existing 1986 forest plan); the proposed action (the revised forest plan) and two alternatives that specify the same management direction as the proposed action with the following exceptions: alternative 1 proposes 147,018 more acres be designated as wilderness; and alternative 2 proposes 40,255 more acres of lands to be managed for motorized recreation, provides limited direction regarding managing resources during climate change, and recommends no new special areas for designation. The proposed action is the preferred alternative.

The chemical munitions stockpile contains a variety of chemical agents in several munitions. The exact number of munitions containing chemical agents is classified because of defense considerations, but the stockpile distribution by percent of agent tonnage is shown in Fig. A.1. In addition, the types of chemicals and munitions stored at each location in the United States can be given. The attached map (Fig. A.2) shows this distribution throughout the country. The lethal chemicals stored are basically three types: the persistent nerve agent VX, the nonpersistent nerve agent sarin (GB), and the persistent mustard agents H, HD, and HT. Additionally, there are very small quantities of Lewisite (L), a blister agent similar to mustard, and of GA, the first nerve agent developed, at Tooele Army Depot (TEAD). The lethal chemical munitions in storage consist of cartridges, projectiles, land mines, and rockets. Bulk agent is maintained in a limited quantity of bombs and airborne spray tanks and in a large number of bulk one-ton containers. The size and composition of the stockpile vary greatly at each of the storage sites. Appendix B discusses in more depth the toxicity of agents slated for disposal. The inventories of munitions and chemical agents differ greatly from site to site. Since no two storage-site inventories are alike, the optimal disposal program must address the unique inventory at each.

Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico; The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coronado National Forest prepared this programmatic environmental impact statement to disclose the potential effects of a proposed action to revise the “Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (1986, as amended). The Coronado comprises 1,717,934 acres, most of which are located in southeastern Arizona, and 65,823 acres of which are in southwestern New Mexico. This document reports the results of an effects analysis of management direction in a no-action alternative (the existing 1986 forest plan); the proposed action (the revised forest plan) and two alternatives that specify the same management direction as the proposed action with the following exceptions: alternative 1 proposes 147,018 more acres be designated as wilderness; and alternative 2 proposes 40,255 more acres of lands to be managed for motorized recreation, provides limited direction regarding managing resources during climate change, and recommends no new special areas for designation. The proposed action is the preferred alternative.

Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico; The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coronado National Forest prepared this programmatic environmental impact statement to disclose the potential effects of a proposed action to revise the “Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (1986, as amended). The Coronado comprises 1,717,934 acres, most of which are located in southeastern Arizona, and 65,823 acres of which are in southwestern New Mexico. This document reports the results of an effects analysis of management direction in a no-action alternative (the existing 1986 forest plan); the proposed action (the revised forest plan) and two alternatives that specify the same management direction as the proposed action with the following exceptions: alternative 1 proposes 147,018 more acres be designated as wilderness; and alternative 2 proposes 40,255 more acres of lands to be managed for motorized recreation, provides limited direction regarding managing resources during climate change, and recommends no new special areas for designation. The proposed action is the preferred alternative.

Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico; The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coronado National Forest prepared this programmatic environmental impact statement to disclose the potential effects of a proposed action to revise the “Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (1986, as amended). The Coronado comprises 1,717,934 acres, most of which are located in southeastern Arizona, and 65,823 acres of which are in southwestern New Mexico. This document reports the results of an effects analysis of management direction in a no-action alternative (the existing 1986 forest plan); the proposed action (the revised forest plan) and two alternatives that specify the same management direction as the proposed action with the following exceptions: alternative 1 proposes 147,018 more acres be designated as wilderness; and alternative 2 proposes 40,255 more acres of lands to be managed for motorized recreation, provides limited direction regarding managing resources during climate change, and recommends no new special areas for designation. The proposed action is the preferred alternative.

Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico; The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coronado National Forest prepared this programmatic environmental impact statement to disclose the potential effects of a proposed action to revise the “Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (1986, as amended). The Coronado comprises 1,717,934 acres, most of which are located in southeastern Arizona, and 65,823 acres of which are in southwestern New Mexico. This document reports the results of an effects analysis of management direction in a no-action alternative (the existing 1986 forest plan); the proposed action (the revised forest plan) and two alternatives that specify the same management direction as the proposed action with the following exceptions: alternative 1 proposes 147,018 more acres be designated as wilderness; and alternative 2 proposes 40,255 more acres of lands to be managed for motorized recreation, provides limited direction regarding managing resources during climate change, and recommends no new special areas for designation. The proposed action is the preferred alternative.

Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico; The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coronado National Forest prepared this programmatic environmental impact statement to disclose the potential effects of a proposed action to revise the “Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (1986, as amended). The Coronado comprises 1,717,934 acres, most of which are located in southeastern Arizona, and 65,823 acres of which are in southwestern New Mexico. This document reports the results of an effects analysis of management direction in a no-action alternative (the existing 1986 forest plan); the proposed action (the revised forest plan) and two alternatives that specify the same management direction as the proposed action with the following exceptions: alternative 1 proposes 147,018 more acres be designated as wilderness; and alternative 2 proposes 40,255 more acres of lands to be managed for motorized recreation, provides limited direction regarding managing resources during climate change, and recommends no new special areas for designation. The proposed action is the preferred alternative.

Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands Mora, Harding, Union, and Colfax Counties in New Mexico; Dallam, Hemphill, and Gray Counties in Texas; and Cimarron and Roger Mills Counties in Oklahoma; The Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands proposes to revise those parts of the 1985 “Cibola National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” specific to future management of the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek National Grasslands. The revision would take the form of a new plan for the Grasslands that would be separate and discrete from the 1985 Cibola National Forest plan. The final programmatic environmental impact statement discusses three alternatives in detail, the no action alternative (alternative A) which is the 1985 plan; the preferred alternative (alternative B), which would be a new plan for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek National Grasslands; and the Canadian River PotentialWilderness Area alternative (alternative C), which would be similar to alternative B but with recommendation for a wilderness area designation. The preferred alternative would address foreseeable issues that may arise during the next 15 years, based on needs for change identified from the 1985 plan; provide for clear direction in the form of desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines, suitability, and monitoring; incorporate up-to-date best available science and adaptive management strategies; and establish discrete management areas. The Forest Service considered other alternatives but determined that they would not meet the needs for change from the 1985 plan, were not feasible, or failed to meet established Forest Service Manual (FSM) or Handbook direction.

Ferry, Pend Oreille, and Stevens Counties, Washington

Ferry, Pend Oreille, and Stevens Counties, Washington

Ferry, Pend Oreille, and Stevens Counties, Washington

Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico; The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coronado National Forest prepared this programmatic environmental impact statement to disclose the potential effects of a proposed action to revise the “Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (1986, as amended). The Coronado comprises 1,717,934 acres, most of which are located in southeastern Arizona, and 65,823 acres of which are in southwestern New Mexico. This document reports the results of an effects analysis of management direction in a no-action alternative (the existing 1986 forest plan); the proposed action (the revised forest plan) and two alternatives that specify the same management direction as the proposed action with the following exceptions: alternative 1 proposes 147,018 more acres be designated as wilderness; and alternative 2 proposes 40,255 more acres of lands to be managed for motorized recreation, provides limited direction regarding managing resources during climate change, and recommends no new special areas for designation. The proposed action is the preferred alternative.

Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico; The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coronado National Forest prepared this programmatic environmental impact statement to disclose the potential effects of a proposed action to revise the “Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (1986, as amended). The Coronado comprises 1,717,934 acres, most of which are located in southeastern Arizona, and 65,823 acres of which are in southwestern New Mexico. This document reports the results of an effects analysis of management direction in a no-action alternative (the existing 1986 forest plan); the proposed action (the revised forest plan) and two alternatives that specify the same management direction as the proposed action with the following exceptions: alternative 1 proposes 147,018 more acres be designated as wilderness; and alternative 2 proposes 40,255 more acres of lands to be managed for motorized recreation, provides limited direction regarding managing resources during climate change, and recommends no new special areas for designation. The proposed action is the preferred alternative.

Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico; The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coronado National Forest prepared this programmatic environmental impact statement to disclose the potential effects of a proposed action to revise the “Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (1986, as amended). The Coronado comprises 1,717,934 acres, most of which are located in southeastern Arizona, and 65,823 acres of which are in southwestern New Mexico. This document reports the results of an effects analysis of management direction in a no-action alternative (the existing 1986 forest plan); the proposed action (the revised forest plan) and two alternatives that specify the same management direction as the proposed action with the following exceptions: alternative 1 proposes 147,018 more acres be designated as wilderness; and alternative 2 proposes 40,255 more acres of lands to be managed for motorized recreation, provides limited direction regarding managing resources during climate change, and recommends no new special areas for designation. The proposed action is the preferred alternative.

Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico; The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coronado National Forest prepared this programmatic environmental impact statement to disclose the potential effects of a proposed action to revise the “Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (1986, as amended). The Coronado comprises 1,717,934 acres, most of which are located in southeastern Arizona, and 65,823 acres of which are in southwestern New Mexico. This document reports the results of an effects analysis of management direction in a no-action alternative (the existing 1986 forest plan); the proposed action (the revised forest plan) and two alternatives that specify the same management direction as the proposed action with the following exceptions: alternative 1 proposes 147,018 more acres be designated as wilderness; and alternative 2 proposes 40,255 more acres of lands to be managed for motorized recreation, provides limited direction regarding managing resources during climate change, and recommends no new special areas for designation. The proposed action is the preferred alternative.

Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico; The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coronado National Forest prepared this programmatic environmental impact statement to disclose the potential effects of a proposed action to revise the “Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (1986, as amended). The Coronado comprises 1,717,934 acres, most of which are located in southeastern Arizona, and 65,823 acres of which are in southwestern New Mexico. This document reports the results of an effects analysis of management direction in a no-action alternative (the existing 1986 forest plan); the proposed action (the revised forest plan) and two alternatives that specify the same management direction as the proposed action with the following exceptions: alternative 1 proposes 147,018 more acres be designated as wilderness; and alternative 2 proposes 40,255 more acres of lands to be managed for motorized recreation, provides limited direction regarding managing resources during climate change, and recommends no new special areas for designation. The proposed action is the preferred alternative.

Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico; The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coronado National Forest prepared this programmatic environmental impact statement to disclose the potential effects of a proposed action to revise the “Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (1986, as amended). The Coronado comprises 1,717,934 acres, most of which are located in southeastern Arizona, and 65,823 acres of which are in southwestern New Mexico. This document reports the results of an effects analysis of management direction in a no-action alternative (the existing 1986 forest plan); the proposed action (the revised forest plan) and two alternatives that specify the same management direction as the proposed action with the following exceptions: alternative 1 proposes 147,018 more acres be designated as wilderness; and alternative 2 proposes 40,255 more acres of lands to be managed for motorized recreation, provides limited direction regarding managing resources during climate change, and recommends no new special areas for designation. The proposed action is the preferred alternative.

13 14 35

13 14 35

Ferry, Pend Oreille, and Stevens Counties, Washington

Ferry, Pend Oreille, and Stevens Counties, Washington

The proposed Lake Darling flood control project (authorized by the 1982 Energy and Water Development Act) consists of an approximately 4-foot raise of Lake Darling plus associated upstream and downstream flood control measures, including those at Velva, North Dakota. This programmatic EIS covers all project features. In addition, a site-specific EIS for the Velva portion of the project follows this programmatic EIS. A site-specific EIS for the Lake Darling features will be released later.

This Record of Decision (ROD) announces final Agency determinations and approvals prepared by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) in response to a proposal to increase DTRA testing activities at the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), New Mexico. The proposed action (and preferred alternative) is comprised of nine activity-related categories: 1) collateral effects testing using simulant materials; 2) rock penetration testing; 3) hard target lethality and defeat testing; 4) advanced weapons lethality testing; 5) static high explosive (HE) testing for target lethality; 6) weapons effects testing using the Large Blast/Thermal Simulator (LB/TS); 7) antiterrorism testing; 8) development of weapon effects targets and test beds; and 9) improvements to the Permanent High Explosive Test Site (PHETS) Administrative Park. Two Environmental Assessments (EA) covering DTRA operations at WSMR were completed in early 2002. At that time, DTRA had no requirements for the use of simulants or taggants south of Mockingbird Gap and the limited number of simulants met the Agency requirements. It was recognized at that time if either situation changed, additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews would be required. In the fall of 2002, requests were made for the use of simulants at Capitol Peak and for the use of new simulants. Based on the number of simulants, the potential impact to the White Sands pup fish population and the overall scope, DTRA in conjunction with WSMR, determined a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) rather than an EA was necessary to appropriately evaluate the proposed action.

This Record of Decision (ROD) announces final Agency determinations and approvals prepared by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) in response to a proposal to increase DTRA testing activities at the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), New Mexico. The proposed action (and preferred alternative) is comprised of nine activity-related categories: 1) collateral effects testing using simulant materials; 2) rock penetration testing; 3) hard target lethality and defeat testing; 4) advanced weapons lethality testing; 5) static high explosive (HE) testing for target lethality; 6) weapons effects testing using the Large Blast/Thermal Simulator (LB/TS); 7) antiterrorism testing; 8) development of weapon effects targets and test beds; and 9) improvements to the Permanent High Explosive Test Site (PHETS) Administrative Park. Two Environmental Assessments (EA) covering DTRA operations at WSMR were completed in early 2002. At that time, DTRA had no requirements for the use of simulants or taggants south of Mockingbird Gap and the limited number of simulants met the Agency requirements. It was recognized at that time if either situation changed, additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews would be required. In the fall of 2002, requests were made for the use of simulants at Capitol Peak and for the use of new simulants. Based on the number of simulants, the potential impact to the White Sands pup fish population and the overall scope, DTRA in conjunction with WSMR, determined a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) rather than an EA was necessary to appropriately evaluate the proposed action.

This report comprises an abbreviated statement which incorporates by reference the Draft Programmatic statement of the same title dated November 1980 for detailed information. The document summarizes the environmental impacts associated with development of natural gas beneath U.S. waters of Lake Erie's eastern and central basins bordering the States of New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio; provides errata and addenda to the Draft statement; and responds to comments received on the Draft Statement. Major topics of discussion include: applicability of using the Canadian Lake Erie drilling experience; establishment of a Task Force and in each state an offshore office for program coordination; waste disposal methodology; need for natural gas; the role of the International Joint Commission, the 1909 U.S. - Canada Boundary Waters Treaty, and the 1978 Water Quality Agreement; the effects of re suspending sediment; validity of using worst-case accident analysis in lieu of Canadian accident data; contingency plans and spill cleanups; the effects of polyethylene glycol chlorination; impacts on water supplies and water treatment costs; an onland alternative program; and an explanation of the reference program concept.

This report comprises an abbreviated statement which incorporates by reference the Draft Programmatic statement of the same title dated November 1980 for detailed information. The document summarizes the environmental impacts associated with development of natural gas beneath U.S. waters of Lake Erie's eastern and central basins bordering the States of New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio; provides errata and addenda to the Draft statement; and responds to comments received on the Draft Statement. Major topics of discussion include: applicability of using the Canadian Lake Erie drilling experience; establishment of a Task Force and in each state an offshore office for program coordination; waste disposal methodology; need for natural gas; the role of the International Joint Commission, the 1909 U.S. - Canada Boundary Waters Treaty, and the 1978 Water Quality Agreement; the effects of re suspending sediment; validity of using worst-case accident analysis in lieu of Canadian accident data; contingency plans and spill cleanups; the effects of polyethylene glycol chlorination; impacts on water supplies and water treatment costs; an onland alternative program; and an explanation of the reference program concept.